UPDATED Mitchell in Syria: Obama's Big Push in the Middle East?

Non-Story of the Day: Israel, Iran, and “All Options on the Table”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE (28 July, 0800 GMT): Well, it looks like the Obama Administration is more than serious about getting Syria to the negotiating table. Hours after we posted Josh Landis' caution that Damascus resented continued US sanctions, a White House spokesman said, " "Mitchell explained to President Assad that the U.S. would process all eligible applications for export licenses to Syria as quickly as possible", especially "those requests to export products related to information technology and telecommunication equipment and parts and components related to the safety of civil aviation."

However, there still remains a very big obstacle to resolution of the economic issues. The spokesman added that "there has been no change" to the general sanctions legislation against Syria, imposed in 2003: "Changes to U.S. sanctions would require close coordination and consultation with Congress."
---
The BBC breathlessly proclaimed this morning that, with President Obama's envoy George Mitchell visiting Syria, Egypt, and Israel and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Tel Aviv today, this was the Obama Administration's "big push" for a Middle Eastern settlement. A moment's reflection before such a dramatic statement might have been in order: Mitchell's two previous tours of the region have been "big pushes", there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "big push" in the spring, and of course there was the high-profile Obama speech in Cairo. All those big pushes have brought little movement so far.

Josh Landis, evaluating the first leg of Mitchell's tour in Damascus yesterday, gives further food for thought:

First analysis of the Mitchell Meeting

George Mitchell did not say what the United States expected from Syria, especially on Hamas, as he left his meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Mitchell said, after the meeting, that restarting talks between Syria and Israel was a “near-term goal” for Washington. “If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full cooperation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavor,” he said to reporters. “I told President Assad that President Obama is determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."

Mitchell’s brief is Israeli-Arab peace. The main sticking point in US-Syrian relations at this time,however, is the Iraq intelligence-sharing deal, the details of which seem to be concluded, but which Syria is not implementing. Some analysts suggest that Damascus is dragging its feet out of fear of al-Qaida, which might launch a terror campaign against Syria. I find this argument dubious. Damascus insists on US compliance on concerns it has been raising with Washington for some time. I do not know exactly what these concerns are other than having an ambassador appointed, ending the era of public demonization of Syria, and normalizing relations.

Speaking of normalizing relations, the Airbus export license on which Syria had hung it hopes of reviving Syria Air and launching Pearl Airlines was rejected last month. Because the US refuses to sell new Boeing planes to Syria and has put every impediment in the way of Syria purchasing spare parts to repair its aging fleet, Syria Air is all but grounded. To remedy this embarrassing situation, President Assad has sought to buy European planes, but it turns out that over 10% of these planes are manufactured in the US, permitting the US Treasury Department to refuse permission to the Europeans to sell them to Syria. This means that Obama can effectively close down the Syrian air industry, which he is doing. The embargo on planes and aviation parts is just one aspect of the US-imposed economic sanctions Syria believes Obama should end.

The US clearly has a pack of economic, military, and political cards to play. If, for example, the US demands Syria satisfy US concerns on an entire portfolio, such as intelligence sharing and Iraq, in exchange for normalizing one element of economic relations, such as aviation, Syria will have to hand over much of its foreign policy bag of tricks simply to purchase normal relations with the West. This is undoubtedly not an exchange rate Damascus likes.

Western diplomats are not sympathetic to Syrian complaints that they are being treated unfairly. “Syrians think they are the center of the World,” one non-American Western diplomat complained to me in June. I replied that most Syrian officials I know become indignant when Westerners reminded them that they are bit players on the world stage. They insist that they have “nafis tawiil,” or long breath, meaning that they will refuse deals on terms they consider humiliating or bad even if refusal costs them a heavy price.

To predict how negotiations may turn out is pointless. It is too early to say. We don’t know what sort of deal is shaping up in Damascus or where the stickiest points are. Syrian officials explain that US-Syrian relations have been dormant for eight years and suggest that it is quite natural that only a few months of dialogue cannot break down the great distrust and misunderstanding built up by the Bush years.

Non-Story of the Day: Israel, Iran, and "All Options on the Table"

Mitchell in Syria: Obama’s Big Push in the Middle East?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE 1630 GMT: More ritual statements after the meeting between Secretary of Defense Gates and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "A large part of the discussion was devoted to Iran, with Gates saying that the US and Israel saw eye-to-eye on the Iranian nuclear threat, and reiterating that US engagement with Teheran would not be open-ended, said the Prime Minister's Office."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZprJ1YDufEM[/youtube]

Unsurprisingly the media are all a-flutter today over Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's statement, after his meeting with US counterpart Robert Gates, over an Israeli response to an Iranian nuclear programme: "We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table. This is our policy; we mean it."

It's an entirely predictable statement, bringing an entirely predictable reaction. An insignificant statement --- despite the media's excitement --- on the military front. A more significant statement --- despite the media's inattention --- on the diplomatic front.

Let's translate:

BARAK: "This is our policy; we mean it." [I know, Mr Gates, that you and your Administration will not support an Israeli military attack on Iran. But my Government isn't planning on moving anywhere on talks to the Palestinians, and we're not that certain about discussions with Syria. And we definitely don't want the word "settlements" coming up in this conversation.

I've got a domestic audience watching this press conference, and there's nothing of substance I can give them. So I'm going to say, IRAN...IRAN...IRAN.]

GATES: "[Engagement is] not an open-ended offer....[We are aware Iran may try to] run out the clock....The timetable the president laid out still seems to be viable and does not significantly raise the risks to anybody." [No, you're not going to attack Iran, so let's deal with the diplomatic process.

My President is committed to an attempt to resolve the issues with Iran through discussion. At the same time, we need to keep you on-side, so you don't do anything crazy. And we don't want you using the Iran excuse to delay moves on other Middle Eastern issues. Last but not least, I've got an American public opinion --- as well as some people within my own Government --- who think there can never be an agreement with Tehran.

So you can get a vague statement that talks are not open-ended. The press can speculate on a deadline: End of September? December? But it's only July, and everything is up in the air given the internal situation in Iran, so no need to face the put-up-or-shut-up music yet.]

GATES: "We will continue to ensure that Israel has the most advanced weapons for its national defense." [Here's your symbolic and very real pay-off for not pushing us on this.]

BARAK: "Israel remains in its basic position that no options should be removed from the table, even though priority at this stage should be given to diplomacy." [That's cool. Thanks for the weapons. And, remember, shhh.... on the settlements.]

Video and Transcript: Top US Military Commander Mullen on "Face the Nation" (5 July)

Nothing stunning in the appearance of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on CBS News' "Face the Nation". He offered the standard "it's a challenge, but we're doing fine" on Afghanistan and Pakistan while promising eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

The interview should be seen more as a reassurance from the Obama Administration, after stories earlier this week of clashes between the White House and the military over the Afghanistan strategy, that everyone is getting along quite famously.


Watch CBS Videos Online

HOST JOHN DICKERSON: Joining us now, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen . Good morning, Admiral. Thank you for being with us.

I want to ask you first about Afghanistan. There are new operations and they’re testing the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy. Can you give us a progress report?

MULLEN: Well, I’m comfortable with the strategy. We’ve had -- launched an operation earlier this week, the first significant one.

What’s most important is that I think we know how to do counterinsurgency. We’ve done that. This is very focused on providing security for the Afghan people.

But in the south, this is where the -- we expect the toughest fighting. It’s already started out to be pretty tough. We’ve made some advances early. But I suspect it’s going to be tough for a while. And again, we have enough forces there now not just to clear an area but to hold it so we can build after. And that’s really the strategy.

DICKERSON: All right. And I want to ask you about the number of forces. You say you’re comfortable with the strategy. There was a report in The Washington Post...about National Security Adviser Jim Jones [that] seem[s] to be suggesting that commanders in the field cannot ask the president for more troops.

Was that the first time you’d heard that, in The Washington Post?

MULLEN: Well, I -- obviously, I read the report as well. But I can assure that I’ve had discussions with General Jones. I’ve also had them with the president. And we’re all committed to -- to properly resourcing this -- this undertaking.

And General McChrystal, who’s the new leader over there, is in the middle of an assessment. And he’ll come back sometime late July or to mid-August with what he needs. And his guidance is to come back and tell us exactly what he needs.

I’ve also told him just to make sure there’s not an -- you know, every single military member over there is somebody that’s absolutely required. And so we’re all -- again, we’re all committed to getting this right and resourcing it properly.

DICKERSON: When the report came out, there seemed to be some confusion. Did you call the president to ask him about this?

MULLEN: No, I didn’t -- I didn’t talk to the president. I had actually spoken with the president, along with Secretary Gates, sometime before this, in terms of how we’re going to proceed or what it looks like General McChrystal’s going to do and what the assessment is expected to cover, without knowing what the results will be. And when we get the results, we’ll move forward from there.

DICKERSON: Do you want commanders to tell you what they need right now, before this is -- do you want them to tell you what they need?

MULLEN: General McChrystal’s guidance for me, before he went, was, you tell me exactly what you need and then bring it back here, and we’ll look to properly resource it.

DICKERSON: The White House has said -- in response to talking about Jones’s remarks, they said his message was that military force alone will not win the day in Afghanistan.

Was there anybody in the Pentagon who thought military force alone would win the day in Afghanistan?

MULLEN: I’ve said for a long time, you know, that the military -- the military piece of this is a necessary piece but it’s not sufficient.

We’ve got to move to a point where there’s security, so that the economic underpinnings can start to move, and development that we can create governance so that the Afghan people can get goods and services consistently from their government.

DICKERSON: One other piece here is the Afghan government. Do they need to do more to help us?

MULLEN: They need -- I believe our focus, and certainly the focus of Ambassador Holbrooke, as well as our new ambassador there, Ambassador Eikenberry, is to work with the Afghan government to provide, at every level, not just the national level, but at the local level, the district level, the sub-district level, the provincial level.

And we’re hard at -- the whole of our government and other countries is hard at work doing exactly that.

DICKERSON: We’re hard at work. Are they stepping up, though?

MULLEN: I think -- they are starting to step up. But it’s a big challenge.

DICKERSON: Let’s switch to Iraq. This was an important week there, U.S. troops out of the cities.

Vice President Biden said, if there’s a flare-up in violence, it’s up to the Iraqis. Is that -- is that right?

Are our troops on the way out the door and nothing could change it?

MULLEN: Clearly, we’ve had -- the initial trends, after we’ve removed our troops from the cities earlier this week, are positive. There has been an uptick in violence in these high-profile attacks. But June of this year was the lowest level of overall violence in Iraq since the war started.

I think what the vice president was focused on was this sectarian violence, you know, breaking out as it did a couple years ago. And certainly, that’s a concern.

MULLEN: But I see no indications whatsoever that that’s going to be the case.

DICKERSON: But is the military posture towards the exit we’re going to let Iraqis work out any violence if it should come to that?

MULLEN: Well, we’re still very focused on the overall strategy which keeps our troop levels at about this level towards the end of this year focused on elections in January which is key in providing security for elections and then a pretty rapid drawdown to get to the 35-50,000 troops that we expect to be there in August of 2010. It’s really up to the Iraqi political and military leadership to make sure that they tackle some of these tough problems. We are in support of the Iraqi security forces right now. And that’s where we’ll stay.

DICKERSON: OK. Our tour of the world is going to continue now to North Korea. They’ve threatened to shoot a mid-range missile towards Hawaii. What are we prepared to do if that were to happen?

MULLEN: I’m very comfortable with our defensive posture that we can protect our interests, our people and our territories. What I am increasingly concerned about is just the belligerence and actually the unpredictability of the North Korean leadership. These seven missiles that he fired yesterday which is to some degree a repeat of what he did in 2006, they’re a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution.

I think the international community needs to continue to bring pressure and stay together to let him know that he continues to isolate himself. And I’m concerned about his belligerence and instability in that region.

DICKERSON: It seems that North Korea, that it’s a black hole, in terms of our intelligence knowing what they’re up to, is that right?

MULLEN: It’s a very difficult to know what he is up to.

DICKERSON: One thing that did happen this week is the Korean ship apparently turned around. Do we know why? And do you think it’s on its way back?

MULLEN: It did. It looks like it’s on its way back. You can’t know for sure. And actually don’t know for sure why it turned around.

DICKERSON: Might it have been that it was turned away? MULLEN: Well, there’s some -- I mean there’s speculation on what it could be. I’m really not sure. We were obviously concerned about it. We’re keeping close track of it, made a decision to turn around. And it looks like it’s headed back to Korea, North Korea. But I honestly don’t know.

DICKERSON: You don’t know, OK, all right. We’ll leave North Korea in mystery there.

Let’s switch to Russia. You’ve been there. You met with your counterpart in Russia. Who is calling the shots? Is it Prime Minister Putin or President Medvedev?

MULLEN: Well, I went -- actually I just got back Tuesday and I leave shortly to go back with President Obama for the summit. The summit I think is a really important two days. My meeting last week with General Makarov was my second meeting with him. I met him in Helsinki several months ago. And we are very focused on this renewal of the military relationship.

We expect a signed work plan during this summit. And that’s important. I think clearly there are political considerations that President Obama is going to have to deal with in his engagement with President Medvedev. But that’s really up to him and it’s not up to me.

DICKERSON: One of the things the Russians are upset about is the U.S. anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe. Are they making progress, conditional on our removing those missile systems?

MULLEN: The focus on missile defense is one I understand. The missile defense system that we’ve proposed is a defensive system. It’s not meant in any way, shape or form to be threatening to Russia. That’s something we disagree with in terms of how the Russians see it. And I think that’s something we’re going to have to work through. In this country, President Obama has directed a review of the third sight. We’re doing that. And that review won’t be done until later this year.

DICKERSON: They disagree with us on this position but the question really is whether they’re making it a condition, whether they’re saying, look, you’d like to have progress but we’re not going to progress until you commit to removing them.

MULLEN: Well, I think that certainly is to be worked out by both President Obama and President Medvedev. And I wouldn’t be presumptive of the decisions that they’re going to make or in fact how much of that they’re even going to talk about during this summit.

DICKERSON: OK, let’s go back to something also that Vice President Biden said about Iran. He said that if Israel wants to launch a strike to stop Iran’s nuclear capability there’s nothing the U.S. can do. Is that right?

MULLEN: Well, I have been for some time concerned about any strike on Iran. I worry about it being very destabilizing not just in and of itself but the unintended consequences of a strike like that.

At the same time, I’m one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that’s very destabilizing. I worry about the proliferation of the technology. I worry about other countries thinking in the region they might have to have that capability.

So it’s a very, very narrow window with respect to that. It’s something I’m engaged with my counter -- my Israeli counterpart on regularly. But these are really political decisions that have to be made with respect to where the United States is. I remain very concerned about what Iran is doing. They continue to state sponsor terrorism. They continue to develop nuclear weapons. They are a -- have been a destabilizing force in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And that’s really been the areas that I’ve tried to focus on.

DICKERSON: But a strike is not a military -- I mean that’s not a political decision if the Israelis make a strike, that’s a military consequence you’ll have to deal with.

MULLEN: I think actually, you know, should that occur obviously all of us will have to deal with that.

DICKERSON: Let me ask you now on Pakistan, linked to Afghanistan, of course. It’s been a couple of months now. We’ve asked the Pakistani government to pick up its efforts with the Taliban. How are they doing?

MULLEN: They’re actually doing pretty well. A year ago were you and I sitting here talking about what the Pakistanis were not doing, you know, that would have been the area of focus.

In fact, they’ve actually made a lot of progress, taken significant military steps, had a significant impact and moved in a positive direction. I’ve engaged my counterpart General Kayani there many times. Basically he’s doing what he told me he would do. He’s concerned about the focus both the threat from India as well as the growing threat in terms of the insurgency. He’s addressing both of those. Actually they’ve done pretty well.

DICKERSON: They’re doing well in the Swat Valley. They seem to have cleared out the Taliban there. They’ve headed south. But in the North, militants have said they’re breaking a cease-fire and it looks like it’s a little bit stalled there in terms of the Pakistani reaction. Is this a hornet’s nest now that they’re in the middle of this and are they capable of handling that hornet’s nest?

MULLEN: Well, from what I’ve seen, General Kayani has a very deliberate plan and he’s on his plan. He’s aware. He knows his country very well. The military leadership knows their country very well. And I think they’re dealing with it. He has pushed, I mean, he has a force focused in two different directions. He’s rotating forces not unlike us. So he’s approaching it in a measured, thorough way. It’s going to take some time. Oftentimes more time than we’d like to give him.

DICKERSON: All right, Admiral Mike Mullen, thank you very much.

MULLEN: Thanks, John.