For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

The discussion began as Sen. McCain discussed his meetings in Syria with commanders of the Free Syrian Army, who claimed that chemical weapons had been used in the conflict. According to McCain, the commanders are conscious that radical components of the opposition, like Jabhat al-Nusra, could assume power if President Assad falls in Syria, and are opposed to this happening.

He went on to describe the regional effects of the ongoing conflict, claiming there was a sectarian line being drawn through the region and predicting negative effects throughout the Levant. McCain declared that “Iran is all in” and said he anticipates the country’s role in the conflict will exacerbate the trend of radicalization already apparent in Syria and the surrounding states.

McCain said that Assad will not negotiate a political solution while he maintains his current military advantage, but did not want this to discourage US policymakers from playing an active role in the conflict. He emphasized the importance of the Middle East to the United States for reasons of enduring national interests, increasing American credibility and advancing democracy worldwide and stated, “The Middle East has always been more important than oil, and it still is.” He went on to reiterate the importance of immediate action in pursuit of these interests, declaring, “The longer we wait to take action, the more action we will have to take.”

Sen. McCain described the new political reality the Middle East faces in the wake of the Arab Spring as “upheaval unlike any time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.” He called the democratic upswing the Arab Spring represents “the greatest repudiation of al-Qaeda” and their ideology, and thus supporting the development of democracy and human rights in the region is “the best way to defeat terror in the long-term.” He argued that the United States is the only major world power not committed to this movement, and such a shift in engagement with the Middle East must start with “credible Syria policy.”

McCain assessed that the conflict in Syria will “grind on” until the balance of power shifts against Assad.  As for preliminary policy suggestions, he proposed using standoff weapons against Assad’s airfields and related assets, establishing a provisional government to help unify the civilian component of the Syrian opposition, and protect the government-in-exile with Patriot missile batteries (such as those currently in place in Turkey) to protect them. The Senator also suggested arming the rebels, arguing that the “only forces not getting weapons” are moderates. Decisive action could build American leverage in Syria.

He argued that there are other additional avenues for increased American engagement in the Middle East, such as in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. And while the US should focus most of those efforts should be focused on the development of democracy and human rights, he argues that different countries will require different means to achieve for the U.S. to achieve its goals there. With respect to Egypt in particular, McCain called himself “a friend of Egypt,” but recent events, such as the conviction of 43 NGO workers (including 16 Americans), means that the United States should reevaluate its supply of aid to Egypt especially as the U.S.’s aid budget shrinks and international demands for U.S. aid grow. After that, McCain contended that the U.S. should also always continue to aid the Israel-Palestine peace process.

Only the President of the United States can demonstrate America’s stake in the Middle East, and rally American public support and the U.S.’s allies overseas to accomplish its goals. That sense of presidential leadership, McCain argued, is needed now “more than ever.” What leaders in the region want, and what McCain would like, is to know exactly where the President stands on issues in the Middle East and what he intends on doing about them.

As the Q&A began, in response to a question from the narrator on whether the international community is “past the point of decisive action in Syria,” McCain disagreed with the notion that the situation has not grown “too complicated” as the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued since the overwhelming majority of the National Security Council voiced its support for arming the rebels last year. He argued that the international community needs to give the Syrian civilian opposition a secure location to build a government in exile (a “Benghazi,” as McCain put it), and given that the United States’ relationship with General Idris of the Free Syrian Army remains intact, it will be easier to help organize the military opposition as well. In response to a question on how the U.S. regards Russia in light of its role in the Syrian conflict and affecting the passing of resolutions at the U.N. Security Council, McCain responded that the notion that Putin was “fooled” by the United States fighting in Libya until Qaddafi was defeated was a ridiculous assumption. As for working with Russia to stage talks in Geneva, he attested that as long as Bashar al-Assad is clearly winning the conflict in Syria, the suggestion that he would agree to such talks “defies all logic.” He later commented that the only way Assad will leave power is if “he thinks he can’t stay.”

In response to a question on the “marginalization” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a result of the war in Syria, McCain argued that while resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the long term key to peace in the region, the humanitarian crisis and threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction that the Syrian conflict poses calls for more immediate attention and resources than the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As for the peace process, McCain argued that Bill Clinton remains the ideal American politician to serve as a broker between the two sides.

In response to questions on Islamist extremist elements in Syria and the current makeup of Syria’s civilian opposition, McCain argued that their influence will wane as more moderate factions gain support. He further contended that the Free Syrian Army not only needs light weaponry and ammunition to gain momentum, it needs heavy weapons to fight the regimes tanks and other vehicles. On the political side, McCain put it that 19 year-old FSA fighters sense hardly any connection with the civilian opposition in Istanbul, and mending such disconnection remains a top priority.

Another question asked how“genocide” as reprisal against Syria’s minorities could be avoided if the Assad regime is defeated, to which McCain replied that the U.S. needs firm commitments from the opposition to respect humanitarian norms, and then insert a massive humanitarian once the war is over to make such a reprisal more difficult. He argued that international humanitarian commitment to Syria in the long term would be vital, arguing that “it took 100 years” for the United States to recover from the Civil War.  He did concede, however, that there “will be scores to settle” and that the United States is taking “a huge risk” in whatever policy it decides to implement in Syria.

In response to a question on the emerging protests in Turkey, McCain confessed that they were nearly impossible to predict, but suggested that they are reflective of the ruling AK Party’s increased incorporation of Islam into society, such as through the controversial restrictions on alcohol that it enacted, as well as its increasingly authoritarian bent, such as through its crackdown on journalists.

The final question, from The Mitchell Report author Garrett Mitchell, was on what President Obama should do to reassert American leadership in the Middle East as McCain would like to see. In response, McCain argued that he had already laid out what he thought needed to be done in Syria, but what the U.S. needs to do in Libya was far more indicative of what the President needed to do in the region in general. He argued in favor of a “heavy[er] footprint” in Libya and suggested things like treating wounded fighters from the war, securing Qaddafi’s arms caches and building the new government’s and security forces’ capabilities. In his words, “we have to be engaged, not militarily, so much, but in ways of assisting these people as they go through this incredibly tough transition. We all know that democracy is the most difficult of all. The best of all, but the most difficult of all. So I can’t say we can right every wrong, I’m not saying every revolution will succeed, I’m not saying that we can fix everything, but I do believe that we can be far more heavily engaged in a broad variety of ways, and I would argue that it’s in our national security interest to do so.” In one of his final remarks, as the Senator simply put it, “our values are our interests and our interests are our values.”

On Tuesday, June 5, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled “Obama’s Failed Syria Policy.” Mr. Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Ms. Danielle Pletka, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Dr. Jon Alterman, Director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, testified. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), presided.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In her opening statement, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen said the delayed response from the Obama Administration to support the popular uprising in Syria at the onset and in calling for Bashar al-Assad’s removal allowed for extremist groups and Al-Qaeda affiliates to co-opt the movement “setting up the bloody conflict we see everyday.” She added that we need a political solution in Syria and must work with our allies in the region who fear the repercussions of a protracted conflict. Additionally, she argued that the U.S. must address the serious issue of Moscow continuing to arm the regime, which has escalated the conflict and propped up Assad, whereby she introduced H.R. 893, The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act, that would address the issue head-on. Ros-Lehtinen was also opposed to arming the opposition claiming, “[they] are too fractured, too convoluted to be able to ensure that the arms don’t eventually end up in the wrong hands that may one day turn these weapons against us our allies, like Israel.” Lastly, Ros-Lehtinen rebuked Obama’s inaction in light of his “red line” statement  after evidence suggests that chemical weapons have been used, which she argues sends the wrong message to those “who seek to test our will.” During the opening statement by Ranking Member Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), he remarked that the hearing should be a productive discussion for progressing U.S. foreign policy on Syria, arguing that the U.S. should pursue a negotiated settlement. He further commented on Syria’s impact on the entire Middle East and argued that our assistance should be used as a tool to encourage the fractured opposition leadership to “get their act together.” He also claimed that there are real steps the U.S. can take to address the humanitarian crisis, including a humanitarian court order to provide aid to those in need as well as pushing international donors to fulfill their promises. He further commented that it is the U.S.’s duty to support opposition groups that share our goals and values and that the Obama Administration should use its leverage with Turkey and Qatar to prevent them from arming extremist groups.

Rep. Steve Chabot’s (R-OH) opening remarks primarily concerned the increased role Hezbollah has played in Syria, as well as over the stability of Jordan, which currently hosts over 160,000 refugees in the al-Zataari camp alone. In Rep. Gerry Connolly’s (D-VA) opening statement, he commented that there are four concerns to think about in regards to Syria. The first being “who do we support?;” the second is concern for the spread of the crisis regionally; third, Russia’s role in “blatantly re-arming the Assad regime;” and fourth, the possible use of chemical weapons.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s (R-IL) remarks were far more critical of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy in general, expressing his frustration with “America ceding its role of leadership around the world,” especially in the Middle East and in Syria in particular, as well as through strategies like “leading from behind.” He argued that the United States is looking for “the easy way out” when it comes from engagement in the region, and that when the United States retreats from the world, “chaos ensues.” By contrast, Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) was most concerned with Syria’s territorial integrity post-civil war, and expressed the strategic significance securing Syria’s weapons of mass destruction, helping regional allies like Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and the Gulf States build their own security in response to the conflict

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) briefly remarked that he was interested in hearing feedback about how the U.S. can help fix the situation so that we “don’t repeat the errors of our foreign policies over the last 30 years.” Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) echoed concerns over Assad’s support Iran, recent arms sales from Russia, and Hezbollah’s role in the crisis. He was curious to hear about the prospects for peace talks in Geneva and what the ramifications of a failed negotiation would be. Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) commented that he was interested in hearing insights from the witnesses in order to determine what the appropriate policy for the U.S. is.

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) expressed her desire to discuss potential “new avenues” for resolving the conflict.  She then focused her remarks on two undiscussed aspects related to the Syrian conflict: the first was related to Hezbollah’s financing and how disrupting its efforts and flow of funds “might affect the organization.” Her second question related to Syria’s Kurdish population.  As she attested, “the Kurds are organized, well-financed, and relatively pro-American.” Kurds are not a panacea to the Syrian problem but I wonder whether we could be doing more with them, particularly in light of recently improved Turkish and Kurdish relations,” she added.

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) stated, “It is not a question of beating the Assad regime and handing it over to the good guys,” adding that the opposition is made up of at least eight different groups and is highly fragmented. He remarked that we cannot get involved in another civil war in the Middle East; he argued the U.S. cannot always nation build in the Middle East and oftentimes they have to figure it out for themselves. Contrastingly, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) remarked that “one thing is clear: I believe the global community must respond.” He further added that he hopes to focus on a response that provides humanitarian aid, addresses the refugee crisis, incorporates a global strategy to end the violence and promotes stability in the Middle East.

Tony Badran gave the first opening testimony from the witness panel, opening that the war in Syria has “metastasized” along predictable lines. He also added that discussion of the conflict outside of Syria, especially in the United States, focuses mainly on whether or not foreign powers should intervene in the country and what that intervention would like. Mr. Badran suggested that if the fact that President Bashar al-Assad is the main problem, then the U.S. should do whatever is necessary to destroy him and his regime.  If Iran’s role is the key problem, the U.S. should focus on them, such as by targeting the channels they use to support the regime.  Mr. Badran identified Iran’s role as the key issue for the United States at the moment in Syria, and suggested that the U.S. target Syrian air fields to disrupt their ability to funnel arms into the country, as well as work through regional allies like Turkey and Jordan to aid the rebels in combating Iran’s presence.

Danielle Pletka argued in her opening testimony that the war is not just the rebels versus the regime, its a war that includes Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf States, al-Qaeda, and other armed groups, however, that long list of factions still lacks the major western democracies. Pletka also commented that the United States’ inaction in Syria has hurt President Obama’s credibility. Pletka argued that mistakes like setting red lines and then not sticking to them harms the United States’ ability to project power and assert political influence overseas. She put forth four necessary courses of action: vetting and then arming rebels who embrace democratic norms, using stand-off weaponry to disable Syrian airfields and render inoperable their air force, consideration of imposing a no-fly zone with, and  imposing new sanctions on Hezbollah.

Jon Alterman opened by stating that Syria is strategically important because it is a hub state, with influence that reaches into the Levant, the Gulf and into the Caucasus and Central Asia. All five of Syria’s neighbors, he added, are important to the United States. In response to the Syrian crisis, Alterman proposed five courses of action: establishing safe havens to protect civilian populations on both sides of Syria’s borders, providing limited weapons for civilians own self-defense, engage in more aggressive diplomacy, work on intelligence sharing, and negotiate a settlement for the transfer of power. “We must pursue a policy that meets those needs for Syria while being attendant to the other demands placed on our military and our government,” he concluded.

Ros-Lehtinen commenced the discussion by asking two pointed questions, one regarding the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria and what the U.S.’s response should be, and the second regarding how to convince Russia to stop arming the regime. Ms. Pletka said the only way to contain the use of chemical weapons would be to put U.S. troops on the ground and secure them ourselves, which she notes that “none of us want to do.” Dr. Alterman briefly commented on the Russian issue claiming “Russians have a serious concern with terrorism and jihadism in the Caucasus, we might have things we can help them with.” He added that we should be negotiating with them better and appealing to their higher interests.

Rep. Deutch continued the discussion inquiring about what a resolution in Syria would look like and asking whether the borders would remain the same. Dr. Alterman responded saying de jure, the borders in Syria would remain intact but de facto, there will be some changes and there will be some diffusion of power. He argued, however, that we should not assume that the Geneva convention will have a solution, instead claiming “we’re going to have to work on a process of dealing with the issues in Syria.” Afterwards, Rep. Chabot asked a question regarding the role of Hezbollah in the conflict. Mr. Badran claimed they were leading on all political fronts but that they have suffered some losses. Ms. Pletka added that they are the “best armed, most sophisticated terrorist group in the world,” and we need to be worried about “de-fanging” them. Dr. Alterman finally argued that we should work on discrediting Hezbollah in Lebanon, which could help serve American interests.

Following Rep. Chabot’s question, Rep. Connolly expressed concern over Ms. Pletka’s argument to vet and arm the opposition using CIA intelligence. He rebutted that disaggregating between providing weapons to extremists and jihadists and those rebels who share American democratic values. Contrastingly, Rep. Kinzinger argued that the U.S. should get involved and that “a strong United States is a stabilizing force around the globe.” He later asked about what message the U.S.’s policy in Syria has sent to Iran. Ms. Pletka responded saying the message to Iran is very clear: the U.S. is not serious about our “red lines” or “imposing our will.” Dr. Alterman added that the greatest threat to our standing in the world is our inability to make decisions about our priorities and commitments.

Rep. Schneider asked the question about arming the rebels, and what would happen if those arms ended up in the hands of the wrong people. Mr. Badran responded claiming that there should be a two-pronged approach: we should work with Turkish intelligence in the North and Jordanian and Saudi Arabian intelligence in the South, as a conduit to set-up local forces and secondly, to administer specific tactical systems that can be used for specific tactical missions thereby mitigating unwanted outcomes. Dr. Alterman added that an unwanted outcome of arming the rebels will depend on what we arm them with. Rep. Cotton continued the discussion by asking whether Assad staying in power would be worse or an al-Nusra-lead front toppling the regime. Ms. Pletka argued that the worst scenario would be Assad remaining in power and that the power has tipped in his favor, which is worrisome. She added that a post-Assad Syria is what we should also be focusing on in order to avoid the “bad guys” taking over.

Rep. Weber simply asked each witness to state three things that the U.S. should do in Syria. Mr. Badran argued that we should (1) take out supply lines that Iran is using to supply the regime, (2) work with Turkish and Jordanian intelligence to start working with local groups and (3) stay open about the fact that the conflict will not end until Assad resigns. Ms. Pletka claimed that we should (1) pick a “winner” and vet them with CIA intelligence and (2) impose costs on those aiding the “bad guys.” Dr. Alterman argued that (1) We should focus on protecting our allies and making sure they do not undermine our efforts, (2) remain attendant on the Jihadist threat in Syria and (3) focus on Iran. With his time, Rep. Higgins argued that “there are limitations in what the U.S. can impose on people.” Thus the issue in Syria is not trying to figure out who are the “good guys” and “bad guys,” but understanding the extent to which the United States can engage Syria in the long term. He yielded the rest of his time to the chair.

Rep. Yoho remarked that the constitution does not advocate for interventionist policies, saying that they are “a dangerous thing.” He added that he was worried by Ms. Pletka’s willingness to establish a “fly-over,” inquiring whether it could guarantee not involving an all-out war with “Iran, Russia and maybe China.” Ms. Pletka assured him that a no-fly zone would not lead to a war with Iran, Russia and China. Dr. Alterman added that he believes intervention, at this point, is required. Rep. Cicilline asked whether arming the resistance is practical and if we have the capacity to vet “over a hundred armed forces” on the ground and to ensure that they prevail. Ms. Pletka responded that she trusts the CIA when they say they have the capability of vetting them and Mr. Badran reiterated his “two-pronged approach” that he mentioned earlier.

Congresswoman Lois Frankel (D-FL) asked to what extent the conflict could spill over and affect allies like Jordan and Turkey, thus putting more pressure “on the United States to intervene.” Mr. Bardan argued that the role Hezbollah has played in directing the conflict, Iran’s deployment of strategic weapons inside Syria, and Assad’s assets committing terrorist attacks within Turkey, the conflict is already a regional one where Turkey especially needs to defend its strategic interests. Dr. Alterman agreed, and argued that the spillovers and other wider consequences of the conflict in Syria are even more significant for “small countries [like} Lebanon and Jordan” simply because of their limited resources to deal with them. Rep. Rob DeSantis (R-FL) expressed his concerns over foreign Jihadist fighters fighting in Syria on both sides. Dr. Alterman echoed DeSantis’s concerns, citing France’s concerns over the 400 French nationals fighting in Syria. However, he also argued that the United States still has a stake in dictating the outcome of the conflict. Finally, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asked what would be the best way to identify and arm potential partners among the rebels. Mr. Badran argued that the U.S. already supplies some groups with non-lethal aid, so they should be trusted with tactical weapons. Allies like Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar can also help identify partners, and that there are Islamist elements in Syria that can help. Ms. Pletka agreed, saying that the U.S. often does arm actors that run counter to our democratic interests and that so called “secular” and “democratic-minded” militias are often not so.

With that, Rep. Chabot adjourned the hearing.

Photo Credit: Reuters

Government forces launched an offensive against Al-Qaeda fighters seeking to establish an Islamic state in the country’s southeastern province, Hadramawt. A military official has said that three soldiers and seven militants were killed in fighting in the city of Ghail Bawazeer, while the Ministry of Defense claims that there has only been one death among its soldiers. Although civilians were instructed to stay indoors, residents claim that at least one civilian has been killed while travelling on a bus that was caught in the crossfire.

Yemen is grappling with a secessionist movement in the south in addition to this insurgency and a “spate of attacks by gunmen on government facilities.” These security concerns have alarmed Yemen’s neighbors in the Gulf, who are assisting Yemen in constructing a rehabilitation for Yemeni detainees released from Guantanamo.

President Barack Obama renewed his commitment to shut down Guantanamo in a May 23rd speech, and promised to end a moratorium on the transfer of detainees back to Yemen. The construction of the rehabilitation center was among the conditions put forth by the Obama Administration for ending the ban on prisoner transfers. Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi welcomed the move but added that “Obama now has to really put his words into actions. We will take [up] with… Washington how we can start the process based, of course, on the conditions that may be set by the Americans.”

In the same speech, Obama promised that his administration would provide more information on how drones are used overseas. Meanwhile Danya Greenfield argues that “while drones may have been effective in taking out some key militant leaders, the environment has changed and now the costs of such strikes outweigh the potential benefits.” She adds that reports have surfaced that indicate that several drone strikes in Yemen have been the result of purposefully faulty intelligence provided by the Yemeni government to manipulate domestic politics.

Photo Credit: AFP

Thousands of Yemenis demonstrated in Aden on Tuesday, calling for the south to regain independence. The protesters were responding to exiled southern leader Ali Salem al-Baid‘s calls to commemorate his 1994 declaration to break away from the north. Meanwhile, the National Dialogue Conference (NDC) continued, despite one of its participants being kidnapped. The Development, Good Governance, and State Building Working Groups started their field visit to the Al-Mahra governorate, while visits to Aden, Sayoun and Shabwa were delayed. Working groups are to submit their reports by May 28, and presentations to the mid-term general assembly will start on June 8. A lecture by an Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader criticizing NDC participants as “enemies of sharia” and “supporters of the devil” began circulating widely online. In a cable to Yemen’s foreign minister, Secretary of State John Kerry commended Yemenis’ participation in the NDC and said that the U.S. “will continue to support the Yemeni people in their efforts to build a unified, stable, democratic and prosperous Yemen.”

Writing for The National, Faisal al-Yafai argues that “the southern issue remains the biggest question” for the NDC, and that by not genuinely addressing southern grievances, President Hadi is making the political transition harder. Al-Yafai recommends that Hadi offer a “‘grand bargain.’” In an interview for Foreign Policy, Jeff Gedmin finds that Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman believes that the NDC can succeed and remains optimistic about Yemen’s future. On the MENASource blog, Danya Greenfield and Hazim Al-Eryani note that “groups from all around the country have been able to articulate their grievances on the national stage.” However, they express concern that “Yemen faces a Catch-22 where the Dialogue requires the support of a currently weak state to succeed. State capacity has become both a precondition for and a measurement of success.”

Photo Credit: Wissm al-Okili/Reuters

Increasing incidents of violence have swept across Iraq in recent weeks and Reuters reports that “tensions are at their highest in Iraq since U.S. troops pulled out more than a year ago.” Bombings on Monday and Wednesday killed more than 50. This violence comes during the fourth consecutive month of Sunni protests against the Shia-dominated government. Iraqi officials, fearing that the growing political frustration could be exploited by extremist and militant groups, closed the country’s border with Jordan on Tuesday. One protest organizer criticized the move as “another escalation…to punish the revolting Iraqi people,” because it would drive up food and medicine costs.

On Tuesday, State Department Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell expressed concern over Iraq’s suspension of the licences of ten media outlets: “This action undermines the democratic principles of the Iraqi constitution and the Iraqi Government’s ability to guarantee freedom of the press and freedom of expression.” He added that the U.S. urged Iraq to “reverse this decision” because “the protection of journalistic freedom is an essential aspect of all democratic societies.” Ventrell also condemned the recent violence.

In The Washington Post, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker argues that “the United States must lead a sustained, high-level diplomatic effort” in order to calm the situation and pull Iraq “back from the brink.” Crocker writes that protesters and government forces had “exercised considerable restraint,” but that “that all changed last week.” The violence and reports of increasing al-Qaeda involvement threaten “the gains made since 2007, but also to energize the forces of violent extremism in the heart of the Arab world, already burning in Syria.”

Meanwhile, Kurdish military forces advanced southward into Kirkuk, souring ongoing negotiations between the Iraqi government and high-level Kurdish officials. Lt. Gen. Ali Ghaidan accused the Kurds of trying to capture oil reserves, while Kurdish officials called the troop movement a necessary security measure. The negotiations failed to end the Kurds’ boycott of Iraq’s government, but the dialogue will continue.

Photo Credit: Mohammed Ameen/Reuters

Iraq will hold Governorate Council Elections in 12 of its 18 provinces on Saturday despite increased violence and a wave of assassinations. On Monday, approximately 20 separate attacks across the country killed nearly 50 and wounded more than 200. In recent months, “At least 15 candidates, all members of the minority Sunni community, have been assassinated — some apparently by political opponents, others by radical Sunni militants. Many others have been wounded or kidnapped or have received menacing text messages or phone calls demanding that they withdraw.” Polling stations have also been targeted, raising concerns about voter security in the first elections since the withdrawal of American troops. Elections in the provinces of Anbar and Ninewa were already postponed.

The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) published a guide to Iraq’s elections. IFES notes that Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission has worked to make more information available for voters, that a record 26% of the registered candidates are women, and that “these elections will be a good test-run for parliamentary elections scheduled in 2014.” The guide also addresses the elections’ legal framework, campaign and media rules, vote counting, and dispute adjudication, among other topics.

In a paper for the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program, Marina Ottaway finds that “ten years after the U.S. invasion…Iraq remains a deeply troubled country, rent by internal dissensions and caught in the maelstrom of the increasingly sectarian politics of the region.” She notes that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has systematically whittled down the power-sharing agreement and “succeeded in establishing his control over all executive agencies,” triggering resistance from Sunnis both in the government and the streets. Ottaway argues that the unity of Iraq hangs “very much in the balance” due to disputes between Maliki and the Kurdistan Regional Government over oil and military authority. Regionally, she concludes that “Iran is Maliki’s only external supporter.”

Photo Credit: Sami Zaptia/Libya Herald

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) visited Libya on Thursday for the fifth time since the country’s revolution. He met with Prime Minister Ali Zidane, the ministers of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Defense, and Justice, and the president of Libya’s General National Congress. He also had a “great discussion” with civil society leaders and legislators from Benghazi. McCain said that while there are “real and serious challenges facing Libya,” he is “hopeful” due to the aspirations of the Libyan people. He categorically denied that foreign troops would be helping to improve security in Libya, but that the spread of al-Qaeda “requires the cooperation of all nations in the Maghreb.” McCain said the U.S. would provide training and equipment if requested, and that “our logistical help will grow equally with the development of the Libyan government.”

Robert Kaplan writes that “Libya has gone from being a tyrannical state to being barely a state at all,” and that its borders have become frontiers. He argues that Libya “is but a vague geographical expression” that required “suffocating forms of tyranny” to hold it together, so the fall of Gadhafi brought about dangerous consequences. Kaplan acknowledges the merits of intervention, but finds that its proponents fail to recognize that without using troops, the U.S.’s ability “to rebuild weakened or collapsed states is severely limited.” He concludes that Libya “will go on and on as a dangerous and weakly governed area between Tunisia and Egypt.”

Western diplomats and defense officials in Tunisia reported that the country has turned into “an Islamist militant haven” since the fall of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali‘s regime in early 2011. Some high profile militant leaders are known to be operating there while Ennahda debates how to deal with violent extremists. One official noted that many of al-Qaeda’s fighters in Mali were Tunisian,  and that they may now return and destabilize the country.

For full event notes, continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Dr. William Zartman began the discussion with remarks about the struggle between reform and stability in the Middle East and North Africa following the 2011 Arab Spring, and why Algeria’s path has differed from some of its more revolutionary neighbors. On the surface, Algeria’s conditions seem to have all of the indicators for revolution: an aging autocratic ruler without a clearly delineated plan for succession, high unemployment (particularly among youth), and less than promising prospects for developing the economy beyond energy resource exports in the near future. However, there are a number of factors which seem to have discouraged Algerians from following in the regional upheavals that unseated their neighbors’ long ruling autocrats. The first and most poignant reason is that Algerians highly value their country’s stability and fear a return to civil war. As Algeria’s bloody decade of civil war in the 1990s exemplified, the Algerian military, unlike those of Egypt and Tunisia, may not necessarily have qualms about firing on its own citizens, especially when those citizens attempt to hand power to an Islamist government. Meanwhile, though the aging autocratic President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has no chosen successor, Dr. Zartman described Pres. Bouteflika and the military as codependent and noted that the military will likely still hold significant power in the country after the president departs.

Despite these obstacles to reform, Prof. Zartman points out that there have been a number of small uprisings across Algeria since the beginning of 2011. However, many of these protests and uprisings throughout the country have been very provincial in nature, or centered on small or very specific grievances or constituencies, and have lacked the wider appeal to inspire national coalescences behind a single broad-based protest movement.  Subsequently, the Algerian government has been rather successful at buying off, suppressing, co-opting, or otherwise discrediting these groups. The other reason that opposition to the government has failed to coalesce, according to Zartman, is that the Bouteflika government has some level of democratic legitimacy behind it, stemming from the 2010-2011 elections. These elections Zartman characterized as not wholly un-free or unfair saw gains for the ruling twin parties of the National Rally for Democracy and the National Liberation Front (RND and FLN respectively), while opposition Islamist parties fell from relevance.

Looking forward to next year’s presidential elections, Dr. Zartman’s outlook was cautious. Dr. Zartman argued that in the unlikely event that President Bouteflika chose to go back on his word and run for president again, this would trigger an uprising. More likely, according to Zartman, is that the next candidate to win the presidency will come from Pres. Bouteflika’s clan, and that the candidate will also likely be from a generally older generation of political leaders from within the RND and FLN, which may not play well among youth activists and the younger generation of unemployed Algerians.

Following Dr. Zartman’s remarks, Prof. Eamonn Gearon addressed the “Security and Politics of the Sahara.” Prof. Gearon began with the historical background to the security situation in Algeria, explaining that after 132 years of French rule, the bloody conflict that gave Algeria independence and political legitimacy to the generation of President Bouteflika also gave rise to Salafi jihadi extremists which served as the root to today’s al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Adding that to the likewise bloody Algerian Civil War of the 1990s, Algeria has seen a higher level of violence than any other state in the region. According to Mr. Gearon, this has contributed to Algeria’s penchant for a stronger military role in providing stability for the country, as well as a deep seeded skepticism of foreigners following the country’s long struggle with colonialism.

Transitioning to today’s challenges of security in Algeria, Mr. Gearon discussed the issue of extremist militias that operate across Algeria’s vast and unsecure frontiers. Mr. Gearon described that extremist groups linked to AQIM are working to spread fear and instability in the region, but also to profit from criminal acts of kidnapping and ransom. He pointed to the recent hostage crisis at the In Aminas oil platform in eastern Algeria where militants took roughly 700 oil workers hostage and planned to ransom the workers then torch the oil platform. Though their entire plan was not successful, Gearon described Algeria’s extremist groups as having a rather successful year so far, as the militants had successfully attacked the previously well defended platform, thus continuing to spread terror. Prof. Gearon did note, however, that Algeria’s extremists are not determined to topple the regime and do not seek the burden of attempting to govern the country in troublesome times. They simply want better returns from their kidnappings and attacks; and noting their successes in recent months, Algeria’s security situation is likely to get worse, before it gets better.

In a Q&A session, Profs. Gearon and Zartman addressed Algeria’s economic situation further. Expounding on the notion that Algeria does not have an economy, but rather a savings account from oil revenues, Mr. Gearon explained that Algeria’s over-reliance on their oil industry does not help to create many jobs, and the jobs that are created, generally go to foreign contractors, and not anyone from Algeria’s 25-30 percent unemployed youth. While Dr. Zartman suggested that a downward trend in oil prices may put pressure on the government to diversify, both Zartman and Gearon agreed that there is not currently the political will to diversify the Algerian economy far beyond oil exportation.

Photo Credit: REUTERS/Zoubeir Souissi

In a piece for Foreign Policy, David Gartenstein-Ross urges the U.S. and the international community to press Tunisian officials to prosecute vigilantes responsible for acts of violence , obstruction of justice and threats to freedom of expression throughout the country. At the heart of the attacks, Gartenstein-Ross writes,  is the hard-line Salafi movement which is reportedly behind dozens of attacks against individuals they believe to have transgressed appropriate moral, Islamic standards. “Vigilantism has spread far and wide, affecting a broad spectrum of Tunisian society: artists, liberal clerics, Sufis, religious minorities, educators, secularists, foreigners, and civil society activists have all been its victims,” he said, adding, “alarmingly, there are several documented instances in which those who carried out the attacks were able to intimidate the security services, thus resulting in police inaction following acts of violence…” Fearful of challenging or capturing the ire of violent Islamist groups, or even consciously neglecting the attacks, Gartenstein-Ross faults the government for failing to maintain order and eroding citizens’ faith in authorities to do so. “If the government looks the other way, or if police are too intimidated to make arrests, then the extremists will have won an important battle in the struggle for Tunisia’s future.”

Also in Tunisia, General Carter Ham, the outgoing chief of the U.S. Africa Command, warned that al-Qaeda is attempting to establish a presence in Tunisia. Alongside U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia Jacob Walles, Ham held meetings with Tunisian Prime Minister Ali Larayedh, Interior Minister Lotfi Ben Jeddou and Chief of Staff of Armed Forces General Rachid Ammar to address the country’s security concerns. “Good governance, education, and economic development,” are the best ways to counter al-Qaeda’s influence in North Africa, he said. The Interior Minister later announced that Tunisia’s Supreme Security Council planned to establish “crisis cells” to monitor and combat terrorist activity in the country.

Photo Credit: AFP Photo/Mohammed Huwais

In Yemen on Wednesday two suspected Al-Qaeda gunmen on a motorbike shot and killed Colonel Abdullah al-Mushki, a high-ranking security official. “The interior ministry said that 40 members of the security forces and four civilians were killed in 2012 in hit-and-run shootings by gunmen on motorbikes.” This latest assassination came just two days after Yemeni security forces raided an apparent Al-Qaeda hideout near Sana’a, arresting two operatives, and “seizing explosives, suicide bomb vests, assassination manuals and lists of targets for attack.” Also on Monday, ten other Al-Qaeda suspects were formally charged. Earlier, a tribal leader nicknamed Mulla Zabar was killed in one of Al-Qaeda’s southern strongholds. “Zabar mediated between Al-Qaeda and the government many times.”

Meanwhile, the National Dialogue Preparatory Committee nominated three candidates for the secretary general position of the upcoming National Dialogue Conference. Only the Salafi Rashad Party, the Al-Haq Party and the Unionist Assembly Party had submitted its lists of candidates to participate in the conference so far. The Joint Meeting Parties and General People’s Congress confirmed that they would do so before the deadline, but the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party said it would only participate “if the 20 Points presented by the Preparatory Committee to President Hadi are honored.” In Gulf News, Patrick Seale reviews Yemen’s challenges and concludes that choosing “dialogue rather than to violence is very much a step in the right direction — and an example to others.”

Finally, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Tawakul Karman continued to advocate for changes in Yemen. Though her Islamist Islah party and her relationship to it have been criticized, she is focused on fighting intolerance. She said that women and youth “‘will create a new power, a new movement. The revolution has changed the way women look at themselves…We will lead the way to change.’”