浪花直播

A panel of experts discussed American enterprises and influence in the Middle East, noting struggles and opportunities that the second Obama administration faces.

On November 20, the Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Middle East Forum of the Middle East Program hosted a meeting, 鈥淒efining American Priorities in the Middle East,鈥� with Ellen Laipson, President and CEO, Stimson Center; Robert Malley, Program Director, Middle East and North Africa, International Crisis Group; and Marwan Muasher, Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and Distinguished Scholar at the Woodrow 浪花直播 Center, moderated the event. Haleh Esfandiari, 浪花直播 Center Middle East Program director, gave welcoming remarks.

Laipson focused on U.S.-Iran relations, feeling that now is a 鈥減ropitious moment鈥� for diplomacy, given that both countries are currently between elections. Laipson made two key statements: that negotiations are insufficient alone to change Iranian policy and that sanctions have so far had an effect on Iranian well-being. Laipson noted President Obama鈥檚 apparent willingness, as evidenced by remarks at a November 14 press conference, to pursue 鈥渘on-traditional approaches if need be鈥� to open and maintain dialogue with Iran. Arguing that focusing on the nuclear issue alone is not productive, she suggested that taking a 鈥渨ider lens鈥� and meeting with Iran over areas of mutual interest, such as security in Afghanistan, could produce a 鈥渇avorable environment鈥� for nuclear talks. Laipson said that the punitive tone of sanctions further hinders dialogue; the U.S. needs to rethink sanctions so they act as a 鈥渕eans to an end鈥� not an 鈥渆nd state.鈥� Laipson hoped that the U.S. and Iran will not 鈥渕iss each other鈥檚 messages鈥� on opening bilateral talks and posed the question of how the U.S. can 鈥渟ignal that we can treat Iran with respect.鈥�

Malley then brought up three themes of how the Obama administration is approaching the Middle East. First, he emphasized that although the U.S. faces the same conflicts in the Middle East, these conflicts are now 鈥渙n a completely different battleground鈥� in which American influence is declining relative to other actors. Second, although the U.S. is present in the Middle East, it is 鈥渘ot of the Middle East,鈥� and increasingly lacks the ability to 鈥渇rame the agenda鈥� of regional actors, running the risk of becoming 鈥渢he tail that others are wagging.鈥� Third, Obama faces a 鈥渉ost of unresolved issues鈥� left over from his first term, and American goals and alliances may sometimes contradict one another. Malley pointed to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 鈥渕icrocosm鈥� of all he had mentioned. He argued that the U.S. needs to adjust its approach to the peace process, saying, 鈥淛ust as you cannot pursue yesterday鈥檚 war, you cannot pursue yesterday鈥檚 peace.鈥�

Muasher outlined a number of recommendations, emphasizing that 鈥渢he U.S. needs above all to set realistic expectations鈥� regarding its ability to influence the domestic processes of the Arab Awakening. Muasher stated that the U.S. can no longer 鈥減ick winners and losers,鈥� asking for support for democracy as a whole, not only for secular-liberal individuals. Furthermore, he said, 鈥減olitical Islam is not monolithic;鈥� although groups such as the Salafis鈥攏ot peaceful, pluralistic, or democratic颅鈥攕hould be opposed, the U.S. needs to give other Islamist actors room. Turning to the Arab monarchies, Muasher advocated a 鈥渢ough love policy鈥� where the U.S., while not imposing reform, is candid about the need for political solutions to local problems. Muasher spoke also of the need to 鈥渂reak the regional deadlock鈥� on Syria by bringing all actors together to avoid more destruction and radicalization. Similarly, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, 鈥淚t鈥檚 peace now or never,鈥� feeling that if interested parties do not work together and 鈥渟omething drastic is not done today, we will lose this opportunity鈥� to pursue peace.

Miller wrapped up the panel discussion with several observations about the Obama administration鈥檚 approach to the Middle East. He explained that over the course of his first term, President Obama became less ideological in his foreign policy yet more effective and better able to prioritize. Miller discussed Obama鈥檚 constraints going into his second term, in particular the necessity of tackling America鈥檚 鈥渂roken house鈥� of domestic issues and the fact that there are no 鈥渘eat solutions鈥� to any of the Middle East鈥檚 issues. In this context, credible political processes can be most effective in managing regional outcomes.

By Laura Rostad, Middle East Program