Signaling New Changes in the Region
August 25th, 2008 by Sarah
Rami Khouri in The Daily Star argues that the recent talks between Jordan’s Intelligence and Hamas signal that both sides are “making preliminary moves to adjust to changing circumstances.” Resuming normal relations with Hamas is a dramatic change in Jordan policy and “may also hint at underlying changes in Palestine and in the Hamas-Syrian-Hizbullah-Iran camp.”
Posted in Diplomacy, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Jordan, Syria | Comment »
A New Middle East
August 20th, 2008 by Sarah
Rami Khouri in The Daily Star argues that although the memorandum of understanding signed Monday between Hizbullah and the Lebanese Salafist movement is “unlikely to have a major impact on anything,” it does reflect the “constantly evolving line-up of major political actors in the Arab world.” As a “new Middle East” is being born, Khouri recommends shelving the rules created during Cold War, and coming to grips “with the changing pattern of political sentiment, activism, legitimacy and representation throughout the region.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon | Comment »
POMED Notes: Subcommittee Hearing: Update on the Situation in Lebanon
July 30th, 2008 by Sarah
Yesterday, the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs invited Jeffrey Feltman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S. Department of State to discuss the current political situation in Lebanon in light of the recent Doha Agreement. Feltman welcomed the election of President Sulieman and the formation of a new cabinet under Prime Minister Siniora, and reiterated President Bush’s policy of non-engagement with Hizbullah and Syria.
Rep. Gary Ackerman made opening remarks.
For POMED’s full notes, click here.
Posted in Elections, Event Notes, Foreign Aid, Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon, Political Parties, Syria, US foreign policy | Comment »
Setback to Democracy Promotion
July 30th, 2008 by Sarah
Rami Khouri in the Daily Star looks to the advice of Robert Pelletreau, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and ambassador to three Arab countries, to review why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the oil situation, and efforts to expand democracy are worse off now than before Bush became President. Democracy promotion “has been set back by our headlong push for elections in countries with little or no popular experience in political participation. The result has been clerical-led factions being elected in Iraq, Hamas winning parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories, the Muslim Brotherhood gaining ground in Egypt, Hizbullah becoming a stronger political force in Lebanon and even the word ‘democracy’ now being widely treated in the region as an American implant.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine, US foreign policy | Comment »
U.S. Policy After The Israel-Hezbollah Swap
July 22nd, 2008 by Sarah
Andrew Exum at Middle East Progress recommends that the U.S. continue to arm and train Lebanon’s armed forces “to serve as a viable instrument of the state,” and warns against a drastic change in policy. “The real danger here is that U.S. policy might overcorrect in one of two directions: either the United States could enter into direct negotiations with Hezbollah to undetermined ends or the United States could redouble efforts to arm Hezbollah’s internal enemies in the hopes that their domestic position will be weakened. The former option is foolish, while the latter is suicidal.”
Graeme Bannerman argues at Common Ground News Service that by restoring a governing consensus among Lebanon’s the three largest groups - Maronites, Sunnis, and Shi’a - the Doha Agreement began the process of separating the interests of the Shi’a community from that of Hezbollah. “As more and more Shi’a believe their community interests are protected by the government, and as more and more become less comfortable with Hezbollah policies, Hezbollah leadership will either begin to lose popular support or have to change their policies.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon, US foreign policy | Comment »
2008: Separating Terrorism From Islamic Extremism
July 17th, 2008 by Matt
Over at TAPPED, Ezra Klein homed in on a particular passage on Islamic extremism in Barack Obama’s interview with Fareed Zakaria that Klein says shows a distinct difference between McCain and Obama on this issue:
“One of the clear distinctions between the Left’s approach to terrorism and the Right’s approach to terrorism is that the Left wants to limit the scope of the conflict, while the Right wants to expand it. So though it was only al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11, Romney and Giuliani and McCain and plenty of their colleagues want to zoom out from al Qaeda to terrorism, and from terrorism to Islamic extremism. Rather than this being an effort to hunt down al Qaeda, it becomes a war to hunt down al Qaeda, destroy Hezbollah, eradicate Hamas, overthrow Saddam Hussein, change the regime in Tehran, crush the Muslim Brotherhood, and confront Syria, and whatever else Bill Kristol thought of while eating his Cheerios that week.”
Posted in Election 08, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Who Wins With the Israel-Hizbullah Swap?
July 17th, 2008 by Sarah
An editorial in The Daily Star (Lebanon) declares Hizbullah victorious after the prisoner exchange with Israel. Hizbullah is stronger for having prevented Israel from setting the terms of the outcome and Israel is now “more susceptible to the genuine diplomacy that their governments have traditionally disdained.”
An editorial in The Guardian argues that by agreeing to the swap, “Israel has tacitly admitted that its real purpose [of the 2006 war] was not the release of its soldiers, but the dismantlement of Hizbullah’s military infrastructure,” ultimately leaving Hizbullah stronger today than 2 years ago. Above all else, the editorial laments that the exchange “recognises Hizbullah, rather than the Lebanese government, as Israel’s negotiating partner,” reinforcing the idea that violent resistance bears more fruit.
The Times Online editorial suggests that with the swap, Israel has broken its policy of not engaging with terrorists and has perpetuated a cycle of using hostages as bargaining chips. Meanwhile, an editorial in Now Lebanon bluntly asks “Was it worth it?”
Michael Young in The Daily Star argues that the combination of the recent swap, which bolstered Hizbullah and weakened Prime Minister Siniora, the collapse of Resolution 1701, and a lack of U.S. involvement, means that “the independence intifada is over and Syria has entered a new phase in its effort to re-create in Lebanon what it was made to surrender in 2005.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Military, Syria | Comment »
Engagement in the Middle East
June 30th, 2008 by Sarah
Daniel Levy at Prospects for Peace asks the $64,000 question of whether recent rocket fire will lead to an escalation between Hamas and Israel and to an end to the cease-fire.
Sameer Lalwani notes at the Washington Note the pressures on both sides to “play spoiler in order to preempt a resolution that leaves them weakened or excluded from power.”
However, regardless of how successful Israel’s engagement with either Syria and Hamas will ultimately be, a New York Times editorial credits Israel for its latest diplomatic moves. “With its security and even survival at stake, it would have been irresponsible to continue to let Washington’s ideological blinders constrain Israeli diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, Mona Yacoubian and Scott Lasensky at The Council on Foreign Relations argue that the U.S. should change its policy toward Syria to include conditional engagement in order to further U.S. interests of stability in Iraq and Lebanon, promoting peace and stability between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and heading off Iranian influence.
Posted in Diplomacy, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Palestine, Syria | Comment »
Shebaa Farms Solution
June 19th, 2008 by Adam
Babylon & Beyond examines Condoleezza Rice’s recent statement that the U.S. supports a resolution to the delicate issue of Shebaa Farms. The pro-Hezbollah paper Assafir, suggests Rice’s statement was meant to support Lebanon’s Washington allies, in order for them delegitimize Hezbollah’s justification for keeping their arms. Rice also acknowledged that the U.S. would support the democratically elected government of Lebanon, even though it considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon | Comment »
A New Alliance
June 18th, 2008 by Sarah
Abbas Djavadi at Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty asks what will be the consequences of the Syria-Israel talks on the Syria-Iran relationship. “Turkish-mediated Israeli-Syrian talks have alarmed Tehran. The conservative Iranian newspaper Kayhan, which is close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, argued that Syria should not give up a ‘strategic alliance’ for the sake of ‘an unimportant piece of land’ [the Golan Heights].”
Brain Ulrich at American Footprints agrees. “The only thing holding Syria and Iran together at this point is their enmity with the United States and Israel. In other words, it’s not just that making a deal with Syria would lead to a break between that country and Iran, but that the absence of such a deal is the only reason those two countries are together in the first place.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Mideast Peace Plan, Syria | Comment »
A New Leaf for US-Syrian Relations
June 16th, 2008 by Sarah
Joshua Landis at Syria Comment derides the Bush administration’s policy’s continued refusal to engage with Syria, despite the golden opportunity presented by the appointment of Lebanon’s new president, Michel Suleiman. France has welcomed Suleiman, but Landis asks whether this means that France will recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate political party.
Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor reports that the Doha agreement has warmed Syria’s ties in the MidEast. “The Doha agreement was the result of not being able to isolate Syria…There was a realization … that without Syria nothing was going to happen.”
Ariel Kastner at The Daily Star asks whether the U.S. will engage with Syria as a participant in regional talks, even if it is not acting as a lead mediator.
Posted in Hezbollah, Syria | Comment »
Is Hizbullah Stronger Now?
June 12th, 2008 by Sarah
Yesterday, the Washington Institute Near East Policy hosted Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff to discuss the balance of power between Israel and Hizbullah since the 2006 summer war. Amos Harel discussed the military successes and failure on both sides. Avi Issacharoff argued 2 years after the war, Hizbullah is “stronger than ever.” This is true especially in light of the agreement’s acceptance by pragmatic Arab states which has resulted in acquiescence to Hizbullah.
Posted in Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon | Comment »
Long-term Solutions in Lebanon
June 9th, 2008 by Sarah
John Jeha argues in the Daily Star that while the Doha Agreement was successful, it is not a long-term cure for Lebanon’s “vicious cycle of falling in and falling out of civil conflict.” Instead he recommends using Lebanon’s youth to move towards unity and harmony in the nation.
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon | Comment »
The Decline of U.S. Influence
June 2nd, 2008 by Adam
At the Center for American Progress, Brian Katulis is concerned about how growing ties between Iraq and Iran and its impact on U.S. strategy as well as the regional power balance. To Katulis, increasing Iranian-Iraqi ties have the potential to usurp American attempts to isolate Tehran. In a similar vein, Greg Bruno at the Council on Foreign Relations examines Hezbollah’s increased power as a political force in Lebanon, as its sets a precedent for the Shiite militia group to exercise greater political assertiveness.
In the Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin and Lee Casey call on the Bush administration to continue its policy of attempting to diplomatically isolate Iran and Syria. They fear calls to engage these two regimes would bolster their regional influence and legitimize their destabilizing behavior. Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman recommends how the next President can take steps to increase U.S. leverage in the region.
Posted in Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, US foreign policy | Comment »
No Win, No Lose
May 30th, 2008 by Sarah
In an interview with Slate’s Deborah Amos, exiled Hamas leader Khalid Meshal describes the Lebanese-Hezbollah compromise last week as a “no-win, no-lose” situation. When asked why a similar power-sharing agreement was not made between Fatah and Hamas, Mishaal argues that “ the Bush administration prevented Palestinian reconciliation.”
Posted in Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamist movements, Israel, Lebanon, Mideast Peace Plan, Syria | Comment »
POMED Notes: Recent Events in Lebanon and US Policy
May 30th, 2008 by Adam
On Wednesday afternoon, the American Enterprise Institute held a panel discussion regarding the current political struggle in Lebanon and its implications for U.S. policy in the Middle East. The panel members were Hassan Neimneh, director of the Iraq Memory Foundation; Lee Smith, visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute; Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa Program; and Danielle Pletka of AEI. AEI’s Michael Rubin was the moderator.
For POMED’s complete notes, click here.
Posted in Event Notes, Hezbollah, Lebanon, US foreign policy | Comment »
Hezbollah’s Downfall?
May 30th, 2008 by Adam
Over at The New Republic, David Kenner theorizes whether Hezbollah’s recent seizure of Beirut may represent the beginning of their political downfall. Kenner writes that Hezbollah may have alienated its supporters in Lebanon, “…by turning their weapons on their fellow countrymen earlier this month, Hezbollah has violated the ‘grand bargain’ with the Lebanese public that has allowed them to remain militarized.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon | Comment »
And a President Is Elected
May 27th, 2008 by Amanda
Just over a week ago Lebanon witnessed violence unseen since the civil war as Hizbullah took control of many parts of the capital. To end the stalemate, both the Siniora government and Shiite leader Hassan Nasrallah met for peace talks in Doha, Qatar, upon which they reached an agreement. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace provides intriguing analysis on the political deal in Lebanon in a teleconference with Marina Ottaway and Paul Salem.
Four days after the factions made a settlement, the election of President Michel Suleiman (something that is widely seen as a victory for Hizbullah) brought a sense of relief for most Lebanese who welcome the filling of the presidential post as a considerable step forward in the creating peace in the country. The Council On Foreign Relations engaged in the topic by interviewing Michael Young at The Daily Star. Although Young does not necessarily see the compromise in Qatar as a win for Hizbullah, he posits that Sunday’s election “will inevitably lead to a new alignment of political parties by next year.”
In a speech at the Presidential swearing in ceremony on Sunday, Nasrallah affirmed his group would not abuse its newfound gains of government control, including its recent acquisition in Doha of the right to veto any cabinet decision. The developments in Lebanon have incited a fury of commentary on the blogosphere and opinion pages.
While Nicholas Blanford at The Daily Star optimistically considers the “potential for compromises if both sides show a degree of flexibility,”Abu Muqawama reacts negatively to Nasrallah’s speech, referring to it as “dumb.” A regular blogger responds, opining that “it looks like they feel they [Hizbullah] can do what ever they want to the Lebanese government and get away with it.”
Visit Bitterlemmons Internaitonal for more in-depth analysis. UPDATE: For a great synopsis of the broader Middle East media response on the Doha agreement, read this BBC report.
Posted in Arab League, Elections, Hezbollah, Islamist movements, Lebanon, Political Parties, Qatar | Comment »
A US Policy of Conversation Suggested
May 23rd, 2008 by Amanda
In response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Senator Joe Liberman (ID-CT), who questions the efficacy of negotiations with non-allied U.S. states, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) counters his colleague, also in the Wall Street Journal, positing that US policy in the Middle East hinders on three options; “you either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war.” Biden prefers the first option.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek argues that history has been kind to the Bush Administration when it has “agreed to engage with adversaries” in the region, yet continues to fall back on its “macho, exclusively military approach” of alliance forming, most recently with its policy toward Lebanon. He asserts that these tactics are not only ineffective but produce the opposite intended effect of security, offering that “today Hizbullah is stronger in Lebanon, Iran is more influential in the region, and the United States and its ally, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, have been marginalized. “
At The Nation, Mohamad Bazzi agrees that US policy as articulated in recent comments made by President Bush at The World Economic Forum last week are unproductive. Bazzi thinks that the President’s speech provides “yet another example of the Bush Administration’s flawed understanding of basic forces in the Middle East.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon, US foreign policy | Comment »
Outlook for Lebanon
May 22nd, 2008 by Pasha
Michael Young writes for the Daily Star that the majority of Lebanese will not forget Hizbullah’s takeover and may acquire arms in anticipation of another conflict, recognizing that the “structural inability of Hizbullah to coexist with a sovereign Lebanese state will not disappear.” Young is not confident in Suleiman’s leadership as president, predicting that he will be forced to take a stronger “position on defending the sovereignty of the state” in dealing with Syria and Hizbullah, and fearing that he will use the army to “bludgeon” politicians into a power base.
David Schenker of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy explains the intricacies of the peace agreement, lamenting that the agreement does not demand that Hizbullah give up its arms. The new “blocking third” gives Hizbullah unprecedented political power yet does not change “the status quo on the ground.” Schenker foresees cabinet appointments as a particularly influential “wildcard.”
While Schenker does to some degree downplay the new political influence gained by Hizbullah, The L.A. Times states clearly: “Hezbollah won.” Nasrallah has finally converted his popularity and military strength into political power, but damaged his esteem in the process “…by turning his guns on his own countrymen, something he said he would never do…[squandering] much of the credibility he had earned among many Lebanese as the nation’s premier resistance fighter against Israel.” With Hizbullah’s newfound power, the Times does not expect reconciliation and rebuilding. Instead, “Damascus and Tehran are likely to call the important shots.”
Posted in Hezbollah, Lebanon | Comment »
