• Home
  • About MESH
  • Members
  • Papers
  • Contact

Middle East Strategy at Harvard

John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies :: Harvard University

Feed on
Posts
Comments

The first 100 days (5)

Sep 19th, 2008 by MESH

The MESH roundtable on the theme of “The First 100 Days” concludes today. MESH members have been asked these questions: What priorities should the next administration set for immediate attention in the Middle East? What should it put (or leave) on the back burner? Is there anything a new president should do or say right out of the gate? And if a president asked you to peer into your crystal ball and predict the next Middle East crisis likely to sideswipe him, what would your prediction be? MESH members’ answers have appeared in installments throughout the past week. (Read the whole series here.) Today’s responses come from Philip Carl Salzman and Michael Young.

.

Philip Carl Salzman :: The new administration does not have the luxury of a blank slate. American policies, resources, and commitments have already filled up most of the space. Therefore…

Accept the fact that America’s main investment and hope is Iraq, a country of central importance to the Middle East. Stability and example in Iraq would not only be the fulfillment of past American efforts, but the best hope for future political and economic progress in the Middle East. A strong Iraq, friendly to the United States, would be a powerful influence and counter to Iran and Syria.

Avoid trying to be the hero who finally solves what no one else has been able to solve in the sixty years of ongoing efforts: the Palestinian problem. All previous attempts have seen the situation go from bad to worse. Minimizing the worse possibilities is the most realistic course. In any case, the Palestinian problem, central to ideological discourse in the Middle East, is in fact a minor problem of a minor population.

Afghanistan is a frontier fight, not critical to the Middle East—however important it may be to the prestige of America and the West, now that they have committed to making it into a real state and civil society. The project must be pursued, and pursued vigorously, but not at the expense of the more important commitment to the central Middle East.

Look to hitherto peripheral players, Russia and India, who may increasingly contribute to future developments in the Middle East, Russia in a negative way, and India potentially in a constructive way. Both are giants on the borders of the Middle East, and both are feeling their oats and itching to benefit from their weight. The new administration must find ways of discouraging Russia and encouraging India.

.

Michael Young :: A priority of any new administration will be to take a pill against a rampant disease afflicting the Middle East policy community: engagement-itis. Everybody today advocates engagement: of Iran; of Syria; of Hamas; of whatever the Bush administration failed to engage. But no one seems to have clearly defined how engagement should happen and what it must bring about—neither the wonks of the campaigns nor the think tank mavens dying to be offered a policy position.

Depending on who the United States engages, the calculations will differ. Talking to Iran offers different gains than talking to Syria, for example. An American opening to Tehran may be inevitable in the coming months, because the United States wants to avoid a military confrontation in the region over Iran’s nuclear program—whether Washington or Israel does the bombing. The next administration will also need Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan, which will emerge as a battleground in the coming years.

However, for the United States to successfully engage Iran, Washington will need leverage. That means consolidating its gains in Iraq while downgrading its military presence and getting the Europeans and Russia on board in imposing further sanctions on Tehran. A rather tall order. Whether the United States wants to attack Iranian nuclear facilities or not, not having leverage over Iran elsewhere may make more likely the administration’s resorting to the military threat to compensate—belying the claim that engagement will necessarily calm tensions in the region.

One source of leverage over Iran is to weaken its ally Syria. There has been an argument making the rounds that it is time to talk to the regime of Bashar Asad. But talk to Asad about what? The engagers first suggested the United States should try this to break Syria off from Iran, and by extension from Hezbollah and Hamas. But then Asad made clear he wouldn’t break with anybody. Why should he? His dubious relationships are what bring everyone to his doorstep, hat in hand.

So the engagers backtracked and suggested it was a good idea to engage Syria because this might advance Syrian-Israeli peace. But Asad again made plain that his priority in talking to Israel was to normalize relations with the United States and break Syria out of its isolation. And if Asad does that, why should he split with Iran if this was never an American precondition?

Iran will be at the heart of the administration’s problems in the coming year, but Syria will be the Iranian Achilles’ heel that everyone ignores. If the screws are tightened on Syria, Iran could be denied a useful ally in the Levant. But is that going to happen? No. So don’t be surprised if Iran, Syria, and Israel, but also Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as they find themselves having to deal with a United States eager to engage but with little leverage or lucid ideas on how to do so, begin manipulating the dynamics of the one place that serves as everyone’s default game board in the region: Lebanon.

Posted in Geopolitics, Michael Young, Philip Carl Salzman | No Comments

Comments are closed.

  • This Site

    Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University.
    • Read about MESH
    • MESH blog
    • Download entire blog (pdf)
  • Last Post

    • MESH in hibernation
  • Subscribe

    Subscribe to MESH by email Posts+Comments
    Feed Posts+Comments
    Twitter Posts+Comments
    Posts+Comments
    AddThis Feed Button
  • Search MESH

  • Posts by Category

    • Administration (5)
    • Announcements (24)
    • Countries (248)
      • Afghanistan (11)
      • Arab Gulf (11)
      • Bahrain (1)
      • Caucasus (5)
      • Central Asia (2)
      • China (3)
      • Egypt (25)
      • France (2)
      • India (1)
      • Iran (79)
      • Iraq (36)
      • Israel (95)
      • Jordan (9)
      • Lebanon (28)
      • Pakistan (8)
      • Palestinians (52)
      • Qatar (1)
      • Russia (13)
      • Saudi Arabia (14)
      • Syria (18)
      • Turkey (15)
      • United Kingdom (3)
      • Yemen (5)
    • Members (270)
      • Adam Garfinkle (22)
      • Alan Dowty (19)
      • Andrew Exum (11)
      • Barry Rubin (14)
      • Bernard Haykel (9)
      • Bruce Jentleson (6)
      • Charles Hill (3)
      • Chuck Freilich (15)
      • Daniel Byman (17)
      • David Schenker (16)
      • Gal Luft (9)
      • Harvey Sicherman (11)
      • Hillel Fradkin (8)
      • J. Scott Carpenter (15)
      • Jacqueline Newmyer (6)
      • Jon Alterman (13)
      • Josef Joffe (17)
      • Joshua Muravchik (10)
      • Mark N. Katz (22)
      • Mark T. Clark (15)
      • Mark T. Kimmitt (6)
      • Martin Kramer (25)
      • Matthew Levitt (15)
      • Michael Doran (4)
      • Michael Horowitz (9)
      • Michael Mandelbaum (12)
      • Michael Reynolds (14)
      • Michael Rubin (8)
      • Michael Young (16)
      • Michele Dunne (16)
      • Philip Carl Salzman (32)
      • Raymond Tanter (17)
      • Robert O. Freedman (20)
      • Robert Satloff (17)
      • Soner Cagaptay (4)
      • Stephen Peter Rosen (13)
      • Steven A. Cook (14)
      • Tamara Cofman Wittes (18)
      • Walter Laqueur (21)
      • Walter Reich (11)
    • Subjects (274)
      • Academe (4)
      • Books (40)
      • Counterinsurgency (14)
      • Culture (21)
      • Democracy (16)
      • Demography (5)
      • Diplomacy (20)
      • Economics (1)
      • European Union (3)
      • Geopolitics (42)
      • Hamas (21)
      • Hezbollah (25)
      • Intelligence (10)
      • Islam in West (5)
      • Islamism (16)
      • Maps (27)
      • Media (5)
      • Military (19)
      • Nuclear (27)
      • Oil and Gas (14)
      • Public Diplomacy (10)
      • Qaeda (23)
      • Sanctions (8)
      • Taliban (3)
      • Technology (2)
      • Terminology (9)
      • Terrorism (30)
      • United Nations (7)
  • Archives

    • December 2009 (5)
    • November 2009 (13)
    • October 2009 (8)
    • September 2009 (9)
    • August 2009 (9)
    • July 2009 (9)
    • June 2009 (12)
    • May 2009 (16)
    • April 2009 (11)
    • March 2009 (16)
    • February 2009 (11)
    • January 2009 (10)
    • December 2008 (12)
    • November 2008 (11)
    • October 2008 (19)
    • September 2008 (15)
    • August 2008 (17)
    • July 2008 (18)
    • June 2008 (12)
    • May 2008 (17)
    • April 2008 (20)
    • March 2008 (27)
    • February 2008 (19)
    • January 2008 (18)
    • December 2007 (19)
  • Harvard Events

    Check upcoming events from the calendars of...
    • Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
    • Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)
    • Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
  • Rights

    Copyright © 2007-2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College
    Site Meter

Theme: MistyLook by Sadish


Protected by Akismet • Blog with WordPress