Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Pages 60-63

Waging Peace

NCUSAR Policymaker’s Conference

Geopolitical Dynamics: Iran and Regional Security

(L-r) Hillary Leverett, Christian Koch and Jeffrey Lewis discuss Iranian nuclear objectives. (Staff photo A. Blakely)

The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations held its 18th Annual Arab-U.S. policymaker’s conference on Oct. 15 and 16 at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC. The two-day event featured a series of panels and speakers assessing the effects of recent leadership changes on Arab-U.S. relations.

A lively panel on Oct. 15 examined Iran and its impact on the regional security framework. Panelist Hillary Leverett, CEO of STRATEGA, a political risk consultancy, noted that “Iran is not just a problem to be managed.” Its newfound status as a regional heavyweight and the geostrategic reality that it borders 15 countries—not one of which can be considered an ally—mean that Iran will be a critical entity regardless of internal politics or external balances of power.

Washington’s Arab allies and even Israel, she argued, need not view a rapprochement between Iran and the U.S. as occurring at their expense. Rather, U.S. regional allies would benefit from any reconciliation. Leverett emphasized, moreover, that without the normalization of ties between Washington and Tehran, the U.S. will be entirely incapable of achieving any of its strategic objectives in the region. Iran’s region-wide influence, in the form of subversive groups, uniquely positions it as an obstacle to U.S. policy initiatives in the Middle East should it wish to be one.

Christian Koch, director of international studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, presented the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) perspective. GCC states and Iran, Koch contended, operate on the basis of a fundamental difference: “Iran wants to internalize Gulf security,” he said, whereas the “GCC wants to internationalize Gulf security.” On this basis, the GCC interprets Iranian nuclear aspirations as a cover that allows for its continued interference in regional issues.

Koch went on to say that the GCC members are deeply concerned by Iran’s failure to ratify additional protocols to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The GCC is inclined, therefore, to wonder whether it is truly in its own strategic interests to abide by the NPT. According to Koch, GCC states are not entirely satisfied by U.S. offers of protection against an Iranian nuclear threat, and are increasingly inclined to believe that “protection cannot be the replacement for protection.”

The final commentator, Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, remarked on the technical status of Iran’s nuclear program. At the current phase of development, he stated, the program is “still in a period of drift,” owing to the complete lack of a weaponization program (suspended around October 2003) and the undeveloped energy program. There is nothing at this point that would require Iran to decide the direction of the program.

Lewis added that the current U.S. policy focus on having zero centrifuges at Natanz is flawed insofar as Iran is capable of building centrifuges more rapidly than the U.S. can sanction them. Moreover, such excessive emphasis on Natanz is unnecessary due to the robust monitoring regime that covers the facility. There is no reason to believe that Iran would pursue weaponization under such scrutinizing eyes.

As far as using a military option to halt any Iranian progress toward weaponization, such as has been advocated by some Israeli officials, Lewis cautioned that there is no way to completely stop a bomb program. Attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities would only serve to delay the production date of a nuclear weapon, he concluded, and would effectively guarantee that Iran would pursue weaponization in the future.

—Andrew Blakely

Ambassadors’ Roundtable

Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Adel A. Al-Jubeir (l) and U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James B. Smith. (Staff photo A. Blakely)

At the Oct. 15 ambassadors’ roundtable featured at the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations conference, Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Adel A. Al-Jubeir pronounced that the “interests [of our two countries] are more aligned than they have ever been before.” He cited the existence of strong ties and cooperation in the areas of education, counter-terrorism, and trade and investment. The ambassador attached particular significance to the presence of 21,000 Saudi students currently enrolled at U.S. academic institutions.

Ambassador Al-Jubeir’s assessment of the U.S.-Saudi relationship was supported by U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James B. Smith. Filled with optimism, Ambassador Smith explained that in this “era of hope and expectation...for most every challenge facing [the United States] there is a crossroad in Riyadh.” Anxious to erase the effect of eight years of building walls, Ambassador Smith revealed that he views his largest responsibility as the effort to increase exchange, dialogue and engagement between the two countries.

—Andrew Blakely

Geopolitical Dynamics: Israel and Palestine

(L-r) Dr. Stephen Zunes, Ambassador Hussein Hassouna, Ambassador Maen Areikat and Dr. Thomas Neu. (Staff photo A. Blakely)

The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations conference included a panel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the prospects for a comprehensive peace agreement. Ambassador of the League of Arab States to the U.S. Dr. Hussein Hassouna cited the importance of striving to achieve a just and lasting peace even during “days of despair.”

Noting the broader implications of the conflict, the ambassador argued that without a resolution, the region will forever be deprived of true security and stability. He remarked, moreover, that “the problem of Palestine is not only a Palestinian issue, it is an Arab issue” as well. Ambassador Hassouna praised the Arab Peace Initiative, citing the Arabs’ consistent commitment to a policy of peace as a strategic option.

Ambassador and head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Mission to the U.S. Maen Areikat emphatically reiterated Ambassador Hassouna’s notion that the conflict is the key to wider regional stability, stating, “the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict has the potential to resolve other regional conflicts.”

Citing the need for immediate action on meaningful negotiations concerning final status issues “based on very clear terms of reference,” Ambassador Areikat warned that the situation on the ground is rapidly deteriorating. His emphasis on urgency, he said, is linked to the belief that “in Israel-Palestine, tomorrow is not better than today.”

Dr. Thomas Neu, executive director of Friends of UNRWA, weighed in briefly on “the human aspect of the conflict,” which is often overshadowed by political concerns. He pointed to the increasing fear among Palestinian refugees that their interests may be neither respected nor protected in the event negotiations are launched in the near future.

The remaining panelist, Dr. Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, commented on significant changes in the U.S. that are likely to influence the direction of the conflict. Because President Barack Obama is the first president to have known Israel only as an occupying power, he pointed out, Obama is a “non-ideological pragmatist”—meaning he is pro-Israel, but also willing to acknowledge the occupation as inherently untenable. He is the first American president to openly state that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the strategic interests of the U.S.

In addition to the positive changes at the White House, Dr. Zunes also reflected on the changing winds within American Jewry. He noted, for example, that “AIPAC represents an increasingly small minority” among American Jews. Such transformative changes are encouraging signs that the U.S. is finally becoming a serious and willing partner in the peace process.

—Andrew Blakely

Policymakers Discuss U.S.-Arab Relations

The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations began its second day of panels, on Oct. 16, with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Congress’s first Muslim member, giving a candid speech on the benefits of bilateral business relationships between the U.S. and Middle East. Ellison proffered that business relations should be the gateway to diplomatic relations in countries where dialogue is lacking, a position not considered by the current administration.

People-to-people relations will increase mutual trust, Ellison advised. “We will get to a point where we will have a better, stronger, more comprehensive understanding than we have ever had,” he concluded.

The conference also featured a panel of military experts who discussed the role of defense cooperation between the Middle East and the U.S. in enhancing regional security. Rife with military jargon, the panel discussed America’s strategic objectives in the region, offering few criticisms or amendments to be made to the previous administration’s efforts.

—Ryan Carroll

Development and Education

(L-r) Ambassador Theodore Kattouf, Dr. Juan Cole, Dr. Mody Al-Khalaf and Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Saeed. (Staff Photo R. Carroll)

Harriet Fulbright, president of the J. William and Harriet Fulbright Center, introduced a development and education panel comprising experts from a variety of different fields. Her speech highlighted the benefits of education and its relationship to international relations and development.

“Education is becoming a training ground for good citizenship,” said Fulbright, pointing out that “creative leadership and active leadership are the hopeful nectar of mankind.”

Panelist Dr. Juan R.I. Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, discussed Iraq’s higher education system in the wake of the U.S. invasion. He first gave a brief history of scholarship in Iraq, emphasizing that before the war Iraqis had been among the most advanced and highly educated populace in the Arab world, with its universities attracting large numbers of students from the Middle East and further abroad. Women had made greater strides in Iraq than in any country in the region but Tunisia. The Iran/Iraq war, Iraq wars and sanctions all contributed to Iraq’s decline and a fall in literacy levels.

Describing the post-invasion looting of Iraq’s museums, libraries and the destruction of the country’s cultural heritage, Cole placed the blame squarely on the U.S. military, which failed to stop the looting. By 2007 higher education in Iraq was close to collapse, Cole said. Professors had been killed or fled Iraq and students were afraid to go to school. Assessing the present state of Iraq’s university system, Cole highlighted the politicization and increased religiosity of once safe, secular institutions.

“The U.S. public and Congress should not turn their backs on Iraq—we have a responsibility to Iraq,” he concluded.

Panelist Dr. Mody Al-Khalaf, director of cultural and social affairs at the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, gave an illuminating speech about the future of shifting paradigms within her country. Though speaking at length on economics and education, her most passionate moment came when highlighting the progress women have made in Saudi Arabia in the last few years.

“Saudi Arabia has developed so much in such a short period of time,” Dr. Al-Khalaf said. “Women must be the agents of change,” she added. “They are our country’s only untapped natural resource.”

—Ryan Carroll

Views From the Region

(L-r) Barbara Ferguson, Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Claude Salhani, Ibrahim Helal and Hisham Melhem discuss the Arab world’s view of the Obama administration. (Staff photo R. Carroll)

The first lunchtime speaker, Bahrain’s Ambassador Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, discussed the challenges facing the island of Bahrain, including global warming and its survival in a dangerous neighborhood. Bahrain’s Crown Prince, Sheikh Salman Bin Hamad Al Khalifa, has warned that, since it takes only 10 minutes to fly across the Gulf, “the whole region” would be drawn into any military conflict. The Iranian nuclear issue should be addressed diplomatically, Ambassador Nonoo argued: “The region must be spared the threat of confrontation.”

In a recent op-ed published in The Washington Post, Sheikh Khalifa also called for fresh thinking on Arab-Israeli issues. “Our biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch peace on like a light bulb,” he wrote. “The reality is that peace is a process, contingent on a good idea but also requiring a great deal of campaigning—patiently and repeatedly targeting all relevant parties,” including the people of Israel, Ambassador Nonoo told the lunchtime gathering.

The luncheon’s next keynote speaker was Dr. Abdulrahman H. Al-Saeed, adviser to the Royal Court of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He described King Abdullah’s visions of “a world free from terror, clashes of civilizations, and religious conflicts.” To make his visions a reality, the Saudi king recently launched King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), “This vision of peace and cooperation, and mutual benefits, turned into reality as teachers and students from the four corners of this planet were speaking about their dreams and hopes,” Dr. Al-Saeed said.

“The best and the brightest have gathered in this small village on the Red Sea, not to invent or improve weapons of mass destruction. Rather they were there to tackle the tough task of growing rice and wheat using salt water, and to find ways to make nanotechnology and energy more useful to mankind,” Al-Saeed said. It was a moment of high drama. “Here in Saudi Arabia the future is being made in a manner that could only benefit everyone.” Fully 26 percent of Saudi Arabia’s budget, he pointed out, is allocated to education and educational reform.

Finally he described the King Abdullah Center for National Dialogue, emphasizing that improving discussions and communication have become major national priorities.

—Delinda Hanley

Obama Viewed From the Region

Following lunch Barbara Ferguson, Washington correspondent for Saudi Arabia’s Arab News, introduced several distinguished journalists who assessed the Arab world’s view of the Obama administration.

Middle East Broadcasting Center chief correspondent Nadia Bilbassy-Charters warned that expectations were so high after President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech that disappointment could be very high, too. Foreign journalists covering the White House expected greater access to Obama, she added, but have been disappointed. She herself has had not one single question, no off-the-record briefings, or access on presidential trips.

When Bilbassy travels she hears Arabs say they love Americans but hate U.S. foreign policies. Palestinians don’t even know that the U.S. is the largest donor to UNRWA, she said. All goodwill is wiped out when Israel uses one American-donated plane to attack Palestinians or Lebanese. But when Arabs are asked where they’d like to live, receive medical treatment or study, they still choose America, she concluded.

Al-Jazeera English’s deputy managing director Ibrahim Helal wickedly pointed out that Arab students want to study in the U.S. because it’s safer than home—being far from the dangers of American foreign policy. Claude Salhani, author of While the Arab World Slept, discussed the failures of the Bush administration. Panelists Hisham Melhem, Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera’s Helal were challenged by a member of the audience to informally debate one another during a question-and-answer session.

Helal rebutted Melham’s assertion that “the Arab world doesn’t give a damn about Afghanistan,” saying that for many years imams across Egypt and in other parts of the Arab world have prayed for brothers in Afghanistan

The tension between the two stemmed from Melhem’s earlier endorsement of widespread U.S. leadership and diplomatic action in the Middle East, specifically in the Levant.

“We have done a disastrous job on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” said Melhem. “Obama wants to make the United States an indispensible advocate for the good.”

The two exchanged pats on the back as the panelists left the stage.

—Ryan Carroll and Delinda Hanley

Ambassador Chas Freeman

Ambassador Chas Freeman sums up the critical situation in the Middle East. (Staff photo R. Carroll)

The conference concluded with a stirring address by Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, which encapsulated the two days of speeches and panels.

Ambassador Freeman took his audience on a tour through the Middle East, enunciating the various U.S. foreign policy entanglements, misadventures, and mistakes that have left the Middle East more fractured and volatile than ever. Special attention was given to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

“The Obama administration is unwilling, at least for now, to put pressure on Israel. Instead, it has fallen back on the use of diplomacy as psychotherapy for Israel’s political pathologies,” Freeman said. “No peace is conceivable without the full use of American moral and economic leverage to bring Israel to the negotiating table.”

After several long, stunning minutes of describing the severity and variety of problems facing U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East, Ambassador Freeman concluded on an optimistic note.

“President Obama’s message to the world’s Muslims at Cairo last June illuminated a different way forward than the road we appear to be on,” said Freeman. “We can yet take that way forward.”

The ambassador’s speech was received with a standing ovation and thunderous applause. For more information and transcripts visit: .

—Ryan Carroll

< Prev		Next >