Across the Bay

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Iran's Arms Smuggling Network

Here's my piece in NOW today on Iran's complex naval arms smuggling network:

Iran is playing an old game in Middle Eastern power politics: building regional influence through arms supplies to those who can further its agenda. For all the talk about non-state actors, the Iranian smuggling networks highlight that political violence and destabilization in the Middle East remain first and foremost a state enterprise.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Kissinger on Obama's Iraq Policy

An extremely important piece by Henry Kissinger in the Washington Post today that you should definitely read.

[W]hile Iraq is being exorcised from our debate, its reality is bound to obtrude on our consciousness. The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq will not alter the geostrategic importance of the country even as it alters that context.

Mesopotamia has been the strategic focal point of the region for millennia. Its resources affect countries far away. The dividing line between the Shiite and the Sunni worlds runs through its center -- indeed, through its capital. Iraq's Kurdish provinces rest uneasily between Turkey and Iran and indigenous adversaries within Iraq. It cannot be in the American interest to leave the region as a vacuum.
...
But Iraq has largely disappeared from policy debates in Washington. There are special envoys for every critical country in the region except Iraq, the country whose evolution will help determine how American relevance to the currents of the region will be judged. The Obama administration needs to find its voice to convey that Iraq continues to play a significant role in American strategy. Brief visits by high officials are useful as symbols. But of what? Operational continuity is needed in a strategic concept for a region over which the specter of Iran increasingly looms.
...
The outcome in Iraq will have profound consequences, above all, in Saudi Arabia, the key country in the Persian Gulf, as well as in the other Gulf states and in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, financed by Iran, is already a Shiite state within the state. The United States therefore has an important stake in a moderate evolution of Iraq's domestic and foreign policies.
...
America needs to remain an active diplomatic player. Its presence must be perceived to have some purpose beyond withdrawal. An expression of political commitment to the region is needed.

Michael Young wrote last year about Obama's problematic approach in Iraq and the perils of the perception of an American vacuum. I have also touched on it in one of my pieces on Iraq:

As the United States, through its ongoing withdrawal, creates the perception of a growing vacuum, regional states are stepping in to grab a piece of the Iraqi pie. The lack of public attention paid in the US to the statements quoted earlier, and their implications, affirms how far Iraq has dropped in the American national consciousness. This can only be to the detriment of America’s interests and to those of its Iraqi ally.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

The Fallacy of the Hezbollah/IRA Analogy

Here's my piece today on the false analogy between Hezbollah and the IRA, often used to argue for "engagement" with Hezbollah and Hamas.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Lebanon's next war may also be Syria's

Here's my piece in NOW today on the scenarios of the future conflict between Israel and Hezbollah -- and, likely, Syria.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

US Diffidence in the Gulf is Not an Option

Here's my piece today on what the Yemen conflict says about US policy and security architecture in the Gulf.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Strong Horse Politics


Lee Smith has a new book out, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, which was just published by Doubleday. I interviewed him for NOW Lebanon today, and talked about the book's thesis. Check it out.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Narrowing Options on Iran

Here's my piece in NOW this morning on US policy toward, and the debate on, Iran:

Three years ago former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger posed a key question: “[P]ressure – the attempt to induce a decision the other party had not chosen initially – is a necessary component of almost any negotiation… If sanctions cannot move […] Iran, then what can? How else can the permanent members of the Security Council […] prevail, except by making clear the consequences of intransigence?”

Kissinger’s question remains unanswered today. The situation inside Iran has offered the Obama administration a number of possible cards, which it has yet to play in an effort to expand policy options beyond a military strike. The current path of watered-down, or even “targeted”, sanctions is unlikely to succeed. So the question remains: What now? When will one be able to say that engagement has failed?