And on the Eighth Day: Hopes and Fears over The Obama Foreign Policy

Whatever else is said about Barack Obama, you cannot accuse him of being slow off the mark. A day after the Inauguration, he issued the order closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and CIA “black sites” and ending torture by American agencies. Two days later, he revoked the Reagan directive banning funding for any organisation carrying out abortions overseas. On 26 January, he ordered a new approach to emissions and global warming, as the State Department appointed Todd Stern to oversee policy on climate change.



Last Monday, Obama launched his “reach-out” to the Islamic world with a televised interview, his first with any channel, with Al Arabiya. Two envoys, George Mitchell for the Middle East and Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have been appointed; Mitchell is already in the region searching for diplomatic settlements. All of this has occurred even as the Administration was pushing for approval of its economic stimulus package and engaging in fierce inter-agency debates over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The media, rightly but ritually, hailed Obama's symbolic renunciation of his predecessor George W. Bush. Much more substantial was this Administration's attention to methods. The American global image would not be projected and its position assured, as in the Dubya years, through military strength; instead, the US would lsucceed through a recognition of and adherence to international cooperation, a projection of tolerance, and a desire to listen. While the term “smart power”, developed over the last two years in anticipation of this Administration, is already in danger of overuse, it is the right expression for the Obama approach.

Yet, even in Obama's more than symbolic announcement, there were seeds of trouble for that “smart power”. The President had hoped to order the immediate, or at least the near-future, shutdown of Camp X-Ray, but he was stymied by political opposition as well as legal complications. The interview with Al Arabiya was a substitute for Obama's hope of a major foreign policy speech in an Arab capital in the first weeks of his Administrat. The Holbrooke appointment was modified when New Delhi made clear it would not receive a “Pakistan-India” envoy; Mitchell's scope for success has already been constrained by the background of Gaza.

Little of this was within Obama's power to rectify; it would have been Messianic indeed if he could have prevailed immediately, given the domestic and international context. The President may have received a quick lesson, however, in the bureaucratic challenges that face even the most determined and persuasive leader.

Already some officials in the Pentagon have tried to block Obama initiatives. They tried to spun against the plan to close Guantanamo Bay, before and after the Inauguration, with the claims that released detainees had returned to Al Qa'eda and terrorism. That attempt was undermined by the shallowness of the claims, which were only substantiated in two cases, and the unexpected offense that it caused Saudi Arabia, who felt that its programme for rehabilitation of former insurgents had been insulted. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally and firmed quashed the mini-coup by declaring on Wednesday that he fully supported Obama's plans.

On other key issues, however, the President faces tougher, higher-ranking, and more persistent opposition. Within a day of Obama's first meeting on Iraq, Pentagon sources were letting the media know their doubts on a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. And, after this Wednesday's meeting, General Raymond Odierno, in charge of US forces in Iraq, publicly warned against a quick transition to the Iraqi military and security forces. This not-too-subtle rebuke of the President has been backed by the outgoing US Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and I suspect by the key military figure, head of US Central Command General David Petraeus.

The future US strategy in Afghanistan also appears to be caught up in a battle within the Administration, with a lack of resolution on the increase in the American military presence (much,much more on that in a moment). And even on Iran, where Obama appears to be making a overture on engagement with Tehran, it's not clear that he will get backing for a near-future initiatives. White House officials leaked Obama's draft letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a British newspaper, but State Department officials added that such a letter would not be sent until a “full review” of the US strategy with Iran had been completed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Still, all of these might be minor irritants, given the impact both of Obama's symbolic steps and of other quieter but important steps. For example, after the outright Bush Administration hostility to any Latin American Government that did not have the proper economic or political stance, Obama's State Department immediately recognised the victory of President Evo Morales in a referendum on the Bolivian constitution, and there are signs that the President will soon be engaging with Havana's leaders with a view to opening up a US-Cuban relationship. In Europe, Obama's phone call with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was quickly followed by Moscow's announcement that, in return for a more productive US stance on missile defence (i.e., Washington wasn't going to roll out the system in Eastern Europe), Russia would not deploy missiles on the Polish border. There are even signals of an advance in the Middle East through a new US-Syrian relationship, although this is probably contingent on some recogntion or acceptance of Hamas by Washington.

So why am I even more concerned about the Obama foreign-policy path than I was a week ago, when I wrote of my conflicted reaction to the Inauguration? Let me introduce to the two elephants in this room, one which he inherited and one which he seems to have purchased.

Unless there is an unexpected outcome from George Mitchell's tour of the Middle East, Obama's goodwill toward the Arab and Islamic worlds could quickly dissipate over Gaza. The military conflict may be over, but the bitterness over the deaths of more than 1300 Gazans, most of them civilians, is not going away. And because President-elect Obama said next-to-nothing while the Israeli attack was ongoing, the burden of expectation upon President Obama to do something beyond an Al Arabiya interview is even greater.

Whether the Bush Administration directly supported Israel's attempt to overthrow Hamas and put the Palestinian Authority in Gaza or whether it was drawn along by Tel Aviv's initiative, the cold political reality is that this failed. Indeed, the operation --- again in political, not military, terms --- backfired. Hamas' position has been strengthened, while the Palestinian Authority now looks weak and may even be in trouble in its base of the West Bank.

And there are wider re-configurations. Egypt, which supported the Israeli attempt, is now having to recover some modicum of authority in the Arab world while Syria, which openly supported Hamas, has been bolstered. (Those getting into detail may note not only the emerging alliance between Damascus, Turkey, and Iran but also that Syria has sent an Ambassador to Beirut, effectively signalling a new Syrian-Lebanese relationship.)

Put bluntly, the Obama Administration --- with its belated approach to Gaza and its consequences --- is entering a situation which it does not control and, indeed, which it cannot lead. The US Government may pretend that it can pursue a political and diplomatic resolution by talking to only two of the three central actors, working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority but not Hamas, but that is no longer an approach recognised by most in the region and beyond. (In a separate post later today, I'll note a signal that even Washington's European allies are bowing to the existence of Hamas.)

The Israel-Palestine-Gaza situation is not my foremost concern, however. As significant, in symbolic and political terms, as that conflict might be for Washington's position in the Middle East and beyond, it will be a sideshow if the President and his advisors march towards disaster in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Wednesday, the New York Times had the red-flag story. White House staffers leaked the essence of the Obama plan: increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, leave nation-building to “the Europeans”, and drop Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he had any objections. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congressional committees that the US would continue its bombing of targets in northwest Pakistan. (Not a surprise, since the first strikes of the Obama era had already taken place , killing 19 people, most of them civilians.)

So much for “smart power”. Leave aside, for the moment, that the rationale for the approach to Afghanistan --- Gates saying that the US had to defeat “Al Qa'eda” --- is either a diversion or a flight for reality, since the major challenge in the country (and indeed in Pakistan) is from local insurgents. Consider the consequences.

What happens to Obama's symbolic goodwill in not only the Islamic world but worlds beyond when an increase in US forces and US operations leads to an increase in civilian deaths, when America walks away from economic and social projects as it concentrates on the projection of force, when there are more detainees pushed into Camp Bagram (which already has more than twice as many “residents” and worse conditions than Guantanamo Bay)? What happens to “smart power” when Obama's pledge to listen and grasp the unclenched fist is replaced with a far more forceful, clenched American fist? And what has happened to supposed US respect for freedom and democracy when Washington not only carries out unilateral operations in Pakistan but threatens to topple an Afghan leader who it put into power in 2001/2?

This approach towards Afghanistan/Pakistan will crack even the bedrock of US-European relations. In Britain, America's closest ally in this venture, politicians, diplomats, and military commanders are close-to-openly horrified at the US takeover and direction of this Afghan strategy and at the consequences in Pakistan of the US bombings and missile strikes. Put bluntly, “Europe” isn't going to step up to nation-build throughout Afghanistan as a mere support for American's military-first strategy. And when it doesn't, Obama and advisors will have a choice: will they then criticise European allies to the point of risking NATO --- at least in “out-of-area” operations --- or will it accept a limit to their actions?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the lack of agreement in the Obama Administration so far on a defined number of US troops means the President might not be in accord with the approach unveiled in the New York Times. Maybe the Administration will pursue an integrated political strategy, talking to groups inside Afghanistan (and, yes, that includes “moderate Taliban”) and to other countries with influence, such as Iran. Or maybe it won't do any of this, but Afghanistan won't be a disaster, or at least a symbolic disaster --- as with Iraq from 2003 --- spilling over into all areas of US foreign policy.

Sitting here amidst the grey rain of Dublin and the morning-after recognition that “expert thought” in the US, whatever that means, doesn't see the dangers in Afghanistan and Pakistan that I've laid out, I desperately hope to be wrong.

Because, if the world was made in six days, parts of it can be unmade in the next six months.

Enduring America Exclusive: Secret US-Iran Talks in Near-Future?

"Engagement" may be more than rhetoric: it appears that US and Iranian representatives may be meeting --- very, very quietly --- as early as next week.



Last Monday, an Iranian newspaper closely linked with former President Khatami, Yari News, reported, "Secret talks between Tehran and Washington are about to be ‎held at a European capital." ‎Specifically, "discussions are to be held between Mojtaba ‎Samareh Hashemi, representing Ahmadinejad, and William Perry, representing Obama." ‎Samareh Hashemi is a former Foreign Ministry official who is now a senior advisor to Iranian President Ahmadinejad; Perry is a former US Secretary of Defense and an advisor to the Obama 2008 campaign.

Initially, after a reader pointed us to the story, we treated it as just one of many rumours flying about in the first days of the Obama Administration. But then we put this together with the news, announced yesterday, that US representatives were travelling to Berlin next week for meetings on Iran with China, Russia, Britain, Germany, and France.

And then just now, we found this on "The Cable", a blog associated with the journal Foreign Policy:

Several sources told The Cable that the informal dialogue between senior Americans and the Iranians was much more robust in recent months than has been previously reported. Over the past year, our sources confirmed, former Defense Secretary William Perry and a group of high-level U.S. nuclear nonproliferation specialists and U.S. experts on Iran held a series of meetings in European cities with Iranian officials under the auspices of the Pugwash group.

Pugwash, an activist group committed to nuclear disarmament, convened four meetings, one of which was in the Hague in August and another in Vienna in December. The Iranian delegation included Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The American side included Perry as well as Robert Einhorn, a former Assistant Secretary of State and advisor on non-proliferation to the Hillary Clinton and then Obama campaigns. Einhorn, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is expected to be named Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

There are a number of cautions around both the Pugwash report and Yari News's claim of a government-to-government meeting. Einhorn has denied his involvement in any talks with Iran, and Samareh Hashemi has denied any participation in forthcoming discussions. A US Government official damped down any expectations based on past contacts:

[The Pugwash process] is just more of the same "Track II" activities that so many of the participants love to think of as secret talks. There are a number of these things going on and it's hard to keep them straight....Absolutely nothing to do with government to government.

Battles within Obama-land: The Foreign Policy Disputes on Iraq and Iran

Two major stories on US foreign policy, highlighting two critical policy choices on Iraq and Iran:

The New York Times features "On Iraq, Obama Faces Hard Choices".  (Since I wrote that, the Times has gotten to the point: "Obama Seeks Accord With Military on Iraq.) That rather obvious headline is followed by a detailed description of the tension within the White House, a tension we have been highlighting for a week.



Obama's campaign promise for a 16-month withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq is now being confronted --- publicly and blatantly --- by military commanders. General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in Iraq, indicated yesterday that "it may take a year to determine exactly" when US forces can be withdrawn. Although he said there would be a reduction this year, he pointedly used the word "slowly" when describing the transition from counter-insurgency to stability operations.

Describing last week's National Security Council-military meeting as "a very elevated conversation" does nothing to reduce the suspicion of a battle between the President and the military. Nor does sniping from the sidelines by former Dubya advisors like J.D. Crouch III, who was instrumental in pushing General David Petraeus and Odierno to their current command positions.

Meanwhile The Guardian splashes a Page 1 exclusive on a draft Obama letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, replying to Ahmadinejad's congratulations to Obama in November on his election. The letter could signal the opening of US engagement with Iran, but if you read further, it seems that this too may be the start of a battle within the Administration:

The letter is being considered by the new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as part of a sweeping review of US policy on Iran. A decision on sending it is not expected until the review is complete.

Obama may be saved in this case, however, from an immediate conflict because of timing. Ahmadinejad faces re-election this spring, and the US decision may be to hold off on an approach until then. Then again (and this has not been noted by the media), if the US is planning to "surge" in Afghanistan, it would seem prudent to open some discussion with Tehran, which has significant influence in the west of the country.

Morning update ( 12:05 a.m. Washington): The significant overnight news is what was not said by President Obama.

A week after his National Security Council first sat down with military commanders, Obama had a two-hour meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the generals yesterday. His statement afterwards was leading but vague, ""We are going to have some difficult decisions that we are going to have to make, surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan most immediately."

As far as that can be read, it's an indication that there will be troop increases in Afghanistan in the next few months and there will be some decrease in Iraq. The numbers in each case, however, are still up for grabs, as is the strategic approach --- military-first? with or without Afghan President Hamid Karzai? with or without US efforts at nation-building? --- in Afghanistan. Put bluntly, the battles at the moment are not overseas, but within the Administration.

For a clue as to the next development, look for "spin" in The New York Times and The Washington Post in forthcoming days.

Meanwhile, Obama envoy George Mitchell moves to the West Bank today to talk with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Keeping the Gaza-Iran Link (and Dispute) Alive

Update: Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responds to Obama offer of engagement

Related Post: The Linking of Clenched Fists: Israel, Gaza, and Iran

Even while President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are talking of engagement with Tehran, others are keeping the pot simmering for a possible showdown.

Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, claimed, "The United States did all it could to intercept a suspected arms shipment to Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, but its hands were tied." Mullen was referring to the seizure of a Cypriot-flagged ship, which we noted at the time, which was intercepted by a US patrol in the Red Sea, taken to a port, and searched for two days. Reports at the time said "artillery", which Hamas does not use in Gaza, was found; Mullen referred to "small munitions".

Explanation? If US forces had found parts for rockets, their headline claim of Tehran support for Hamas, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to seize them and hold them up to world scrutiny --- it's not as if US "hands are tied" these days regarding international waters or even national sovereignty (for example, Pakistan). On the other hand, "small munitions" --- handguns and ammunition, for example --- isn't worth the fuss; better just to big up the incident (see the Sunday Times "story" by Uzi Mahnaimi that raised our eyebrows) to keep pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, from the Iran-Is-Just-Possibly-Planning-to-Kill-Us-All newsdesk: The Daily Telegraph plays up a section of the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, "Military Balances 2009", which say Iran may have an amount enriched uranium sufficent for weapons production by 2010.

The appropriate response should be: And so....? Enriched uranium is essential, of course, for domestic nuclear energy production, so this development on its own says nothing about Iran's military intentions. The key question is still whether Iran has resumed research and development of nuclear fuel production for warheads. While there is a major effort underway to trash the US National Estimate of December 2007, which said Iran had suspended the military process in 2003, there is no evidence yet to refute its conclusions.

The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (27 January)

Earlier Updates: The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (26 January)
Latest Post: Obama’s First “Reach-Out” to the Muslim World - The Interview with Al-Arabiya
Latest Post: Transcript of Obama Interview with Al-Arabiya
Latest Post: The Linking of Clenched Fists - Israel, Gaza, and Iran

11:50 p.m. When Hamas Isn't Extreme Enough....Make of this what you will. The Israeli Defense Forces say today's bombing that killed an Israeli soldier was carried out by "an extremist pro-Iranian group, which espouses a militant ideology that surpasses even Hamas' positions in its opposition to Israel. The group receives direct support from Tehran, but is connected in various ways to Hamas as well."

The same article states that a group called the "Jihad and Tawhid Brigades" --- "an Islamist group affiliated by Al Qa'eda" --- called Ramattan TV to claim responsibility for the attack.

So we have an attack supposedly carried out on Israel by "extreme Islamsts"-Al Qa'eda-Hamas-Tehran. The perfect terrorist storm or the perfect information campaign?

A quick search turns up reports that "Jiwad and Tawhid Brigades" were formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of the Iraq insurgency who was killed by US forces in June 2006.

11:40 p.m. Turkey continues to manoeuvre for a Middle Eastern re-alignment in which Hamas is a recognised political party. Foreign Minister Ali Babacan urged the Gazan leadership through Turkish newspapers, ""Hamas should make a decision. Do they want to be an armed organisation or a political movement?" At the same time, Babacan pointed noted Hamas' support, "The party supported by Hamas got 44 per cent of the votes in the last elections. It is impossible to ignore this base."

11:35 p.m. Alive in Gaza has the latest audio interview with photojournalist Sameh Habeeb, discussing the latest situation, humanitarian relief, and Hamas' alleged control of funds.

11:20 p.m. US envoy George Mitchell, who is in Cairo for the first leg of his Middle East tour, may want to turn around and go home. Really.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thumbed her nose at Hamas and, indeed, verged on green-lighting another Israeli attack on Gaza. In her first news conference as Secretary, Clinton said:

We support Israel's right to self-defense. The (Palestinian) rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas (in Israel) cannot go unanswered....It is regrettable that the Hamas leadership apparently believes that it is in their interest to provoke the right of self-defense instead of building a better future for the people of Gaza.

I cannot find an explanation for this that fits any sensible strategy of diplomacy, apart from the possibility that Clinton is clinging to the idea of working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, isolating and undermining Hamas. If that is the case, it's a strategy whose time passed three weeks ago amidst the dead in Gaza.

11 p.m. In his first news conference since the Israel attack on Gaza on 27 December, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has pledged to tell US envoy George Mitchell:

Israel does not want peace, otherwise it would not have done this. We need to understand this and tell it to those coming from Europe and America. Israel wants to waste time to strengthen facts on the ground with settlements and the wall.

Abbas set out "red line" demands that would have to be met in any talks, ""We want a state in the 1967 borders, a fair solution to the refugee issue, removal of settlements. There will be no going beyond these points or bargaining." And, for good measure, he tried to put Israel on the moral defensive: "We will do all we can to prove Israel committed crimes that would make your skin crawl. We want the world to give us justice for once."

No doubt Abbas, who is in a good deal of political trouble even amongst his West Bank base, is playing to the Palestinian galleries. To what extent, however, is he serious about taking this position into talks with Mitchell? The answer to that will reveal if Israel's operations in Gaza have effectively ruled out any meaningful negotiations, at least in the near-future.

6 p.m. Gazan photojournalist Sameh Habeeb, speaking to Alive in Gaza, reports "limited [Israeli] ground troop presence" moving into Gaza.

4:15 p.m. Hamas claims two people have been wounded by an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza. Reports indicate all border crossings have been closed following the killing of an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian farmer this morning.

3 p.m. It appears the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has tried to get political breathing space by delaying Presidential elections until 2010. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas had said that elections would take place in April, but that intention has been undermined by the effect of the Gaza conflict on Fatah's support.

Hamas claims that Abbas' term of office ended on 9 January but Abbas maintains that it runs until the expiry of the Parliamentary term next year.

1:55 p.m. Aid workers are protesting Israel's continued restrictions on their access to Gaza. Charles Clayton, chair of the Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA), which represents 75 agencies, says, "It is unacceptable that staff of international aid agencies with expertise in emergency response are still not given full access into Gaza, and that the crossings are not fully operational for humanitarian and commercial goods."

According to CARE, 89 percent of Gazans have not received humanitarian assistance since the first Israeli attacks on 27 December. About 120 trucks of aid are entering Gaza daily but this is far below the level of 600-800 trucks during last year's cease-fire period.

1:45 p.m. Egypt has proposed 22 February for the start of a dialogue between Palestinian groups, according to several of the factions. Hamas is more cautious, saying "This is among the ideas under discussions and to which we will give some responses in due course."

12:50 p.m. Sporting Reference of the Day. At the press conference announcing envoy George Mitchell's departure for the Middle East, President Obama gave this optimistic assessment, "Compared to steroids, this is going to be a breeze."

Explanation? In 2006 and 2007, Mitchell investigated drug-taking scandals in US professional baseball in 2006/7.

11:35 a.m. The Independent of London reports that the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee for aid to Gaza, which the BBC refused to air but which was screened by Britain's ITV and Channel 4 last night, raised £600,000 even before the first broadcasts.

11:30 a.m. An Israeli soldier has been killed on the Gaza border by a bomb near the Kissifum crossing. Local medics say a Palestinian farmer was later shot dead by Israeli forces.

Overnight developments (8:30 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): The major symbolic development is President Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya, his first with any television channel, covering the Middle East and Iran. We've posted the transcript and an analysis. On Israel-Palestine, it offers little of substance, but it's a great statement in tone --- "what I told [envoy George Mitchell] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating".

Meanwhile, Israel's own diplomatic move has been to block a French effort to lift the diplomatic and economic blockade of Hamas and Gaza. At the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, France had sought a closing statement that "the European Union would be prepared to hold talks with a future Palestinian unity government that agreed to honor the principles of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process".  Paris also wanted to open up a broad approach to the issue of Israel-Gaza crossings, striking the reference "in accordance with the 2005 agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority".

According to Ha'aretz, " Israeli officials conducted a frenetic diplomatic battle to torpedo the unwanted changes" over two days, persuading the Czech Republic (which currently holds the EU Presidency), the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy to sideline the French initiative.