Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography Middle East

181. “Maximum Pressure” Harms Diplomacy and Increases Risks of War with Iran

Author:
Daniel Depetris
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
With an economy less than a third the size of the U.S. defense budget and a military ill-suited for offensive operations, Iran is at best a minor threat to the U.S., and one in a region of limited strategic importance. The U.S. need not obsess over Iran policy. While Iran does not threaten vital U.S. interests, U.S. policy does seek to moderate Iran’s behavior and restrict its nuclear weapons development. That is why the U.S. negotiated the JCPOA, an agreement with Iran, Europe’s major powers, Russia, and China to constrain Iran’s nuclear activities. The Trump administration abrogated the JCPOA and imposed a policy of “maximum pressure” designed to compel Iran to renegotiate on nuclear issues and moderate its foreign policy. Rather than capitulate to U.S. demands, Iran expanded its nuclear program and increased its aggression in the Middle East. U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and imposition of a maximum pressure strategy harmed diplomatic efforts with Iran and increased the prospects of direct conflict. The Biden administration has so far continued the policy it inherited from the Trump administration. With nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran predictably stalled, U.S. officials should abandon maximum pressure. Ongoing diplomacy is the best path to revive the JCPOA, and more importantly, lower the risks of war. Even if the JCPOA dissolves completely, U.S.-Iran diplomacy, including on nuclear issues, should continue. War with Iran is not worth the costs.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Conflict, and JCPOA
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

182. Reassessing Russian Capabilities in the Levant and North Africa

Author:
Frederic M. Wehrey and Andrew S. Weiss
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Russia may be back in the Middle East, but is it a truly strategic player? The picture is decidedly mixed. After abandoning most of its presence in the Levant and North Africa during the late 1980s, the Kremlin has alarmed Western policymakers in recent years by filling power vacuums and exploiting the missteps of the United States and the European states. Moscow panders to the insecurities and ambitions of local regimes, trying to enrich itself along the way. While Russian activism is part of a broader push for great power status, most of its policies are rooted more in opportunism than grand strategy. Yet Russian influence is formidable in many respects. In war-wracked states like Syria and Libya, Moscow has adroitly deployed military forces and engaged with actors that are off-limits to Westerners, thus positioning itself as a significant power broker. In Egypt and Algeria, it has pursued arms deals that are unencumbered by human rights conditions. Russia’s economic footprint is expanding in fields ranging from infrastructure to tourism to energy, contributing, in some instances, to the region’s cronyism and corruption. At the same time, a closer look at Russian activism reveals that its ability to shape events in the Middle East is far more modest than is commonly assumed. Russia has neither the tools nor the willingness to tackle the region’s deep-seated socioeconomic and governance problems. In Syria, the limits of the Kremlin’s military commitment have been exposed amid clashes with other powerful, outside players and a hardening stalemate on the ground. For now, Moscow is simply not in a position to achieve its desired military or political outcomes absent a significant investment of new resources. Russian economic penetration is driven mainly by short-term objectives and a search for outsized financial rewards that sometimes fail to materialize or to make Moscow an attractive partner. Russian inroads are further limited by regional factors like fractured politics and capricious local actors, who, despite being plied with Russian attention and support, do not behave as docile proxies. In many instances, Middle Eastern rulers exert far more power in shaping the extent of Russian influence than conventional narratives suggest. Successive leaders of Egypt, for instance, have perfected the game of soliciting Russia’s attention to gain leverage over other patrons, namely the United States. For their part, Israeli leaders have worked hard to ensure that Russia does not throw major obstacles in the way of Israel’s ongoing campaign against Iranian military encroachment in Syria—yet they surely take note when Moscow does the bare minimum in raising concerns about the situation in Gaza. The limits of Russian influence are similarly noticeable in the heartbreaking economic crisis in Lebanon, where Moscow is little more than a bystander. With these limitations in mind, Washington should avoid viewing the region through a zero-sum, Cold War lens that sees every development as a net gain or loss for Moscow or minimizes the agency of local actors. In the context of multiple policy challenges across the globe and at home, U.S. decisionmakers need to prioritize the areas of Russian influence that necessitate a response. In so doing, they should avoid playing the arms sales game on Moscow’s terms or letting themselves be instrumentalized by autocratic Middle Eastern rulers who point to Russian overtures to seek leniency and support from Washington. U.S. and European policymakers have ample tools at their disposal that can frustrate or slow the more malign forms of Moscow’s inroads. Yet the net impact of such pushback on Russian resolve should not be overstated. Instead, Washington should focus its energies on its biggest comparative advantage vis-à-vis Moscow in the region: namely, its abundant sources of influence and leverage in the economic and security spheres, its still-potent soft power, and its leadership of multilateral diplomacy and the rules-based global order.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Economy, and Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Middle East, North America, and Levant

183. How China Learned to Harness Israel’s Media and Booming Tech Scene

Author:
Roie Yellinek
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Israel and China established full diplomatic relations only in 1992, making Israel almost the last Middle Eastern country to do so. Starting in the early 2000s, ties between the two countries began to blossom, mostly because the Chinese government started to view Israel as a global technology hub and began seeking to capitalize on Israel’s innovation capabilities to help meet its own developmental needs and strategic challenges. In addition, as China’s rivalry with Israel’s leading ally, the United States, has heated up, Beijing’s interest in Israel also has gotten stronger. In light of Israel’s status as a major technology hub and a leading U.S. ally, China has sought to deepen its influence in Israel through media engagement and other forms of outreach. As Chinese actors have pursued technological innovation and greater political influence in Israel, they have employed three basic approaches to court favor in and through Israeli media circles: direct messaging to the Israeli public in local Hebrew-language newspapers, the use of Chinese outlets (especially the Hebrew department of China Radio International) targeted at Israeli audiences, and efforts to leverage prominent public figures friendly toward China to amplify favorable messages delivered on these local Israeli and Chinese platforms. China’s messaging strategy in Israel has evolved in three stages. Early on, this strategy mainly included recycled talking points from the Chinese Communist Party that do not always translate well overseas. Between 2015 and 2018, this messaging from Chinese actors started to become more direct and tailored for the Israeli people. Since 2018, Chinese engagement has expanded to include a much wider variety of Israeli media outlets, which has meant even more direct access to ordinary Israelis. This strategy and other elements of China’s diplomatic outreach to Israel seem to be having an impact. According to 2019 polling from the Pew Research Center, Israeli respondents view China more positively than those in any other Western-oriented countries that took part in this survey did. These results are an outgrowth of China’s desire to build influence vis-à-vis Israeli society, especially in terms of Israelis’ views on China. Chinese government officials and other actors see this campaign toward the Israeli people as part of a broader and more important strategic campaign, as Beijing competes with Washington for worldwide influence. Israel has a clear national interest in carefully examining how and why Beijing deploys such strategic messaging and how Chinese actors have leveraged local conditions, language habits, and consumer preferences to advance their objectives. The new Israeli government under Prime Minister Naftali Bennett must act prudently and keep these Chinese messaging activities in mind as it balances and advances Israel’s foreign policy interests, seeking to underscore that it does not see China as an enemy but that cooperation with Beijing needs to be pursued in the right way.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, and Media
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, Israel, and Asia

184. The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Springboard for a New Middle East Security Architecture

Author:
Nabil Fahmy
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The Iran nuclear deal could be the first building block in a new Middle East security architecture.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

185. What to Expect from Biden in the Middle East

Author:
William B. Quandt
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
A Biden administration is likely to rewrite a lot of Trump’s Middle East policies, but the Israel-Palestine issue may not be a priority.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

186. “Reconciliation” in the Communiqué of the Gulf Cooperation Council

Author:
Ibrahim Awad
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
A lengthy diplomatic process is still needed to pave the way toward a true Arab rapprochement.c
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regionalism, and Reconciliation
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, and Gulf Nations

187. Maintaining the U.S.-Saudi Relationship

Author:
Hussein Ibish
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The once booming strategic alliance between Riyadh and Washington has weathered a number of regional storms but is beginning to show wear and tear.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

188. Solving the Nuclear Stalemate between Iran and the United States

Author:
Gawdat Bahgat
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
To reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and provide an effective security apparatus across the region, all Middle Eastern countries need to move beyond a zero-sum mentality.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

189. Iraqi diaspora mobilization and the future development of Iraq

Author:
Oula Kadhum
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Iraqi diaspora mobilization and the future development of Iraq – authored by Dr. Oula Kadhum, explores Iraqi diaspora mobilization before and after the 2003 invasion and fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein. It looks at the ways members of the diaspora sought to help in the rebuilding of their country of origin, at both the elite and grassroots levels, as well as investigating changes over time. Importantly, it analyses the obstacles that have hindered diaspora mobilization since 2003 and argues that the Iraqi diaspora is a valuable, yet largely untapped resource for Iraq.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Politics, Diaspora, Resilience, and Society
Political Geography:
Iraq and Middle East

190. What choices remain for the United States in Syria?

Author:
Nate Rosenblatt and Jomana Qaddour
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Syria is home to one of the world’s most complex conflicts. The chaos caused by the Syrian regime and its allies — within Syria, across the Middle East, and beyond — poses immediate and enduring threats. Considering its foreign policy promise to defend democracy and human rights, the Biden administration does not have the luxury of ignoring what happens in Syria. Accepting that there are fewer options for the United States today than there were ten years ago does not mean normalizing the Assad regime or turning a blind eye to Russian and Iranian efforts to tip the balance of power in the region. In a new issue brief from the Atlantic Council’s Syria program, “What Choices Remain for the United States in Syria?,” Nate Rosenblatt and Jomana Qaddour describe the challenges the United States faces in Syria, including Russia’s attempt to expand the UN Strategic Framework as well the struggle to keep the UN humanitarian border crossings open in northern Syria. The memo then lays out the three potential strategies in Syria: one prioritizing the withdrawal of US forces, a second protecting humanitarian access and ensuring progress on limited, critical files, and a third maintaining US support for, as well as coordination with, partners to dial up the pressure on the Syrian government and its allies. The paper ultimately argues that the Biden administration should seize this opportunity to establish a clear strategy in Syria by aligning its defense, development, and diplomatic capabilities with those of its global allies and partners to shape a better outcome in Syria.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Human Rights, International Organization, Politics, United Nations, Syrian War, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America