The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

I’ve just returned from Bahrain, the tiny island Arab kingdom in the Persian Gulf, which for 40 years has hosted a U.S. naval facility that, for more than 15 years, has also been the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters.

As Bahrain’s political unrest reaches a boiling point, the U.S. Fifth Fleet increasingly finds itself a symbolic hostage in a struggle. Sectarian grievances in Bahrain are long, and often legitimate. While the U.S. Navy does not involve itself in local politics, it nevertheless has become a symbol of the close generational relationship between the Bahraini monarchy and the White House.

Officially, there is no consensus among the opposition regarding the future of the U.S. presence. Mutual distrust is high, though. When visiting the United States, many opposition representatives reassure that they seek no change in the status of the U.S.-Bahraini relationship; Iranian news outlets have, however, cited some of the same figures saying the opposite.

The Bahraini uprising is not sponsored by Iran, but there is no doubt that the Iranian government will try to hijack it for Tehran’s own aims and will use its domination of the airwaves to incite the Bahraini public against the American naval presence. The widespread perception that Obama’s withdrawal is equivalent to defeat in Iraq underscores the belief that, with enough pressure, the Americans will flee.

The United States picks no side in the broader Sunni-Shi‘ite divide, although many diplomats and military officers retain bias against Shi‘ites, falsely assuming Arab Shi‘ites represent Iranian Fifth Columnists. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, as Shi‘ites, facing Western abandonment, feel they have no choice but to accept Iranian protection. Nothing did more to drive Iraqi Shi‘ites into Iranian hands than the support by career diplomats and General David Petraeus for re-Baathification.

Self-fulfilling prophecies cut both ways. As the opposition seeks to leverage American interests to their advantage, they say that the longer the United States sits on the fence in Bahrain, the less likely any new Bahraini government will be to acquiesce to the continuation of the U.S. military presence. Realistically, however, the United States will not turn against Bahrain’s ruling family. To do so would destabilize other Gulf Cooperation Council states, and demonstrate that there is no reward for the ruling family’s long friendship.

As the situation climaxes, both sides should consider the road not taken. Had successive U.S. administrations pressured more proactively for reform, the scenarios for American national security in Bahrain would not be so stark. At the same time, should the Bahraini Shi‘ite opposition commit to continue the American presence, they could repair more than three decades of stereotypes and mistrust in American policy circles.

Michael Rubin

Destination … Somalia?

By Michael Rubin

January 26, 2012, 1:27 pm

Somalia may be in the news for the daring raid President Obama ordered to free aid workers held hostage by pirates. But is there a sunny side to the war-torn country? Perhaps so, according to this online travel guide:

National Parks – With its amazing natural typography the national parks are by far the biggest attraction for holiday makers in Somalia. There are a number of well preserved national parks across that country that will give the tourist the chance to gaze upon a collection of common and rare East African species. The Kismayu National Park of Somalia is one the best that it has to offer. If you want to get a glimpse of some of the rarest African species then the Hargeisa National Park situated in the north is not to miss. Another popular park is situated outside the city of Mogadishu.

Beaches – Somalia has some beautiful beaches lined up against the Indian Ocean in the east. Beach trips when visiting this country should be on top of your priority list. Along with the beaches Somalia boasts an amazing coral reef that runs from Mogadishu all the way up to the Kenyan border in the south. Somali beaches offer a unique experience of tranquility and extreme natural beauty. Situated at a distance of five kilometers from the city of Merca is one of the most sought after beaches of Somalia known as the Sinbusi beach. The shore has some excellent beach huts that will enable you to have modern amenities on a heavenly beach…

Mogadishu – The capital city of that make it a must see city of Somalia. Amongst the different things to explore in the city is the Shanghai Old City. This area served as the playground of the wealthy once upon a time and has been preserved for the globetrotters to explore on their vacations. The area offers unique scenic beauty and examples of architecture that one wouldn’t expect to see in Somalia.

Who knew? Since Somalia, with its absence of government, really is a libertarian paradise, perhaps it would be a good place for Ron Paul to celebrate his next election victory. He has been looking rather pale, recently.

An Islamist Egypt should mean no more business as usual. The Islamist groups coasted to power not only on religious rhetoric, but also on sheer populism. Most Egyptians associate the economic reforms of the Mubarak era with corruption. When Mubarak privatized state-owned industries, he simply distributed them to his cronies. As the Arab Media Influence Report has demonstrated, the vast majority of Egyptians now seek a greater state role in daily life, with the government providing housing and jobs, setting salaries, and regulating prices. This is a formula for economic collapse that no amount of economic aid or loan forgiveness will avert.

Indeed, when the collapse comes, it is essential that Egyptians recognize that the only parties to blame for it are the Islamists who cared more about a social agenda than financial management. Under no circumstances should the United States provide any lifeline or act to preserve a hostile regime. Foreign aid is not an entitlement. Aid tied to the Camp David Accords should not continue if Egypt voids its commitments. Money is fungible; American taxpayers should not subsidize aid and development in Egypt if politicians in Cairo choose to invest in terrorism.

As the Obama administration plans to downsize the U.S. military, an Islamist, terror-sponsoring Egypt should give pause. Free—and secure—passage through the Suez Canal is essential to American security; the Pentagon ought to be prepared to defend that right militarily if need be, but it cannot if it lacks ships, equipment, and expeditionary forces.

As Egypt turns sour, politicians will question the past. This is not only counterproductive, but also wrong: The status quo was not tenable; decades of deferred reform had limited the possibilities of post-Mubarak success. However, to not plan for the future would be policy malpractice of the highest order.

This blog is a part of an Enterprise symposium, “Egyptian Revolution: One Year Later.”

As the Egyptian revolution marks its first year, the optimism with which so many journalists, analysts, and diplomats greeted the popular revolt seems misplaced. With Islamists winning a 75 percent share in a parliament tasked with writing a new constitution, the chance for liberalism or democracy to emerge appears poor. Instead, Egypt—a country in which one in three Middle Eastern Arabs live—appears poised to become a retrograde force for generations, much as Iran did in 1979.

Remembering the real Mubarak

In hindsight, it is easy to wish the United States had stood by Hosni Mubarak, but solidarity with Egypt’s hated strongman would have been foolish. Basing American national security on the longevity of cancer-stricken octogenarians is seldom a long-term strategy. There was no reason for Washington to embrace Hosni’s son Gamal when even the Egyptian military balked at doing so. Unlike Iran, Egypt was not a monarchy, and Egyptians made it clear that they did not seek a hereditary republic.

Nor was Egypt under Mubarak as pro-American as many remember. In 2009, Egypt voted with the United States at the United Nations with less frequency than did Burma, Cuba, Somalia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. Mubarak was not the secular stalwart who so many remember, either. After crushing an Islamist insurgency in the early 1990s, he sought to co-opt Islamists, even as he tried to marginalize the Muslim Brotherhood’s formal apparatus. Who can forget an Egyptian state court ordering Naser Hamid Abu Zayd, an Islamic studies professor who had angered Islamists, forcibly divorced from his wife on the grounds that religious authorities had declared him no longer a Muslim? Mubarak directed that the Egypt-Israel peace should be cold; state media and state-controlled trade unions flooded the airwaves with anti-Israel and anti-American vitriol. Had successive American administrations not tolerated Egyptian incitement over the airwaves or in schools, the younger generations of Egyptians might not be so full of hate.

Lessons learned

The Islamist victory should reinforce the importance of providing active support for liberals even if it antagonizes dictators. Sycophancy is counter-productive. Nor is leading from behind cost-free: In Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere, the Obama administration’s willingness to work through Qatar and Turkey, countries that export Islamism, was a tremendous mistake. Woe to any official who takes Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s endorsement of secularism seriously; after all, Turkey speaks with its wallet, and Erdoğan’s track record suggests his animosity toward a separation of mosque and state. Leading from behind was the final nail in liberalism’s coffin.

This blog is a part of an Enterprise symposium, “Egyptian Revolution: One Year Later.”

Michael Rubin

Twittering Turkey talk

By Michael Rubin

January 18, 2012, 2:30 pm

Over at his twitter feed, Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, has been on a roll condemning Texas Governor Rick Perry for his criticisms of Turkey. Yet, while Ambassador Tan has chastised Governor Perry for his own inaccuracies, Tan may want to look in a mirror:

Namik Tan: “Criticism of Turkey at #GOP debate was ill advised. Turkey is a secular democracy, NATO member and staunch U.S. ally.”

Reality:

(1)    The Pew Global Altitudes Survey finds Turkey to be the most anti-American country surveyed. Hardly a staunch ally.

(2)    Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has called secularism “a big fat lie” and has worked to promote Islamism.

Namik Tan: I hope this episode leads to a better informed foreign policy debate, where allies are treated with respect not disdain.

Reality:

(1)    Well, beyond his government’s anti-American incitement (for example, its endorsement of the anti-American polemic “Valley of the Wolves”), while ambassador to Israel, Tan also described Israel as an ally. Here’s what Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had to say about that.

Turkey’s politics are chaotic. Namik Tan is closer to President Abdullah Gül than Prime Minister Erdoğan, and so may feel at these moments that he has to prove himself with self-righteous chest-thumping. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time for the Turkish embassy to stop treating its audience with disdain and to instead recognize that Turkey can only coast on its reputation as an ally for so long before reality catches up in the public perception.

Michael Rubin

Was Perry wrong on Turkey?

By Michael Rubin

January 17, 2012, 12:07 pm

Governor Rick Perry is catching flack for calling Turkey’s leadership “Islamic terrorists.” While I would not go so far as Governor Perry, had he simply called Prime Minister Erdoğan an enabler for Islamic terrorists, he would be 100 percent correct.

I’ve previous charted Turkey’s path from ally to adversary. But here are a couple factoids which Perry might know, but many journalists and analysts may not:

Prime Minister Erdoğan endorsed an Al Qaeda financier.

Turkey also helped supply Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Erdoğan had repeatedly embraced Hamas and acted to supply it.

Under Erdoğan’s watch, the murder rate of women in Turkey has increased 1,400 percent.

Under Turkey’s Islamist government, press freedom has plummeted.

Governor Perry may not have broad foreign policy expertise, but sometimes it’s useful to call a toad a toad, or at least a supporter of toads.

Whenever the U.S. military undertakes any drill, let alone an engagement, there are hundreds if not thousands of man-hours spent after the fact going over the lessons learned in mind-numbing detail. Never, however, has the State Department conducted a lessons-learned session to investigate why their diplomacy has failed, hence the prevalence of the myth in diplomatic circles that it never hurts to talk.

Obama has sought not only to engage the late Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, current Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, but also Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. In each case, poorly considered dialogue backfired on U.S. interests and, more often than not, on the people living under the thumbs of these dictators or Islamist groups.

Now word comes that Obama wants not only to talk to the Taliban, but also to reward it for coming to the table by releasing high-value detainees before a new round of talks even begins. Forgotten is the fact that between 1995 and 2000, the Clinton administration and its State Department undertook high-level negotiations with the same Taliban leaders who lied and stalled, hemmed and hawed, in order to protect Osama Bin Laden as he planned 9/11. Alas, just over a decade after 9/11, Obama and his aides seem intent on repeating the mistakes that led to that day.

The speed at which Turkey is changing under its Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is astounding. While many Western diplomats praise Erdoğan’s handling of the economy and supposed democratic reforms, they ignore Erdoğan’s agenda to transform Turkish culture and society. This is reflected in the purge of women from the state bureaucracy and the increase of domestic violence as, perhaps, the prime minister’s supporters figure out that they can conduct honor crimes with impunity. According to the Turkish justice minister, the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent between 2002—the year Erdoğan’s Islamist party took over—and 2009. Now it seems that Erdoğan’s government is moving against modern science. According to Hürriyet, Turkey’s internet censors have now turned on Charles Darwin:

A website explaining Darwin’s evolution theory is blocked for children based on new internet filters, daily Hürriyet reported. The website is inaccessible for users applying a “Children Profile” to their connection, a filter designed for underaged users in accord with the new internet regulations activated by the Turkish government. The censor reportedly keeps children away from evolution theory, but allows access to websites on creation.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have described Turkey as a model. It certainly is. But rather than a model for the future, Erdoğan seems determined to take Turkey headlong into the past.

The Frank Ricciardone Prize for Sycophancy is named after Francis “Frank” Ricciardone, the current U.S. ambassador to Turkey who, while the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, famously told Egyptian students that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was so popular among Americans that he could even win elections in the United States. Alas, sycophancy has become so engrained in American diplomatic culture that American officials end up not advancing U.S. interests, but rather emboldening dictators and diminishing attitudes toward the United States among those suffering under the yoke of less-than-democratic regimes.

Previous winners include Pamela L. Spratlen, the U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, for her sycophantic and over-the-top birthday greetings to that country’s leader, and Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade Francisco Sanchez, whose enthusiastic embrace of the abrasive and corrupt Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was akin to a 14-year-old girl at a Justin Bieber concert.

This month, the Ricciardone Prize goes to none other than Vice President Joe Biden. During his surprise visit to Iraq, Biden stopped by Iraqi Kurdistan to see regional leader Masud Barzani. About Barzani, a politician who has amassed a multibillion-dollar fortune and who has overseen a reign of terror against journalists and human rights activists, Biden quipped, “He is the real deal,” a statement Barzani’s office amplified into an endorsement. What came next highlights the danger of puffing up regional autocrats rather than advocating for those who are fighting for individual rights, democracy, and liberty. The next day, Barzani unleashed a crowd of supporters who attacked the offices of an opposition political party. Why respect human rights or political pluralism when the vice president of the United States is willing to offer what in local eyes was such an unqualified endorsement?

ThinkProgress is a website of the Center for American Progress, the think tank founded by President Clinton’s chief-of-staff which closely hews to the positions of the Democratic Party. As my colleague Marc Thiessen points out, the writers at ThinkProgress are up-in-arms about a Los Angeles Times column in which Max Boot highlights some of the links between Iran and Al Qaeda. I won’t rehash Marc’s post—it is devastating. But we can go back even further.

While the folks at the Center for American Progress may believe that “the 9/11 report cleared Iran of any role in the 9/11 attacks,” it may be time that they actually hit the books. The 9/11 Commission Report is chock-full of references to the Iran-Al Qaeda link, even if they did not assert a command-and-control role in the attacks. When I was editor of the Middle East Quarterly, we highlighted the 9/11 Commission Report’s findings regarding Iran, here. When I was in Iran in 1996 and 1999, I had my passport checked often—not only at my port of entry but every time I crossed provincial boundaries and then sometimes at random. It is not credible to believe that the muscle men behind the 9/11 hijackings simply had free passage back and forth across Iran to their terror training camps in Afghanistan and no one stamped their passports or even checked them.

As the Democrats—or at least their intellectual brain trust at the Center for American Progress and its overlapping political action network—go into overdrive to bash Israel and exculpate Iran, it is sad to see they are now driving even closer to denying findings made by the bipartisan commission convened to establish some lessons learned from that fateful day.

An Iranian mob’s ransacking of the British embassy compound in Tehran suggests that 2011 is the new 1979. Then, as now, Iranian actions were far from spontaneous. The take-over of the American embassy in 1979 was actually the second time Iranians had breached that compound. What led to the students turning a 48-hour vigil into a 444-day ordeal? On November 5, 1979, a Carter national security aide—most probably Gary Sick, who had the Iran account in the National Security Council—leaked to the Boston Globe that the Carter administration had taken a military response off the table. When Iranian officials read that the next day, they concluded that they could up their demands and hold the hostages for the long haul.

While fault for the latest incident lays 100 percent with the Iranian regime, the British government should have seen this latest embassy attack coming: The Iranian government refuses to respect the inviolability of diplomatic property. Why should they, after all, when they repeatedly reap rewards for their defiance?

The British embassy is especially vulnerable because the Iranian regime does not take the British government seriously. In Iraq, the Iranians laughed at Britain’s much vaunted softly-softly approach. While British officials chided their American counterparts for reacting to insurgency with force, the British famously just bent over and thought of the Queen. Under British supervision, Basra became a safe haven for both Muqtada al-Sadr’s radical militia and the Iranian-trained Badr Corps. If the Iranians had any doubts about messing with the British, these were resolved on a spring day back in 2007 when Iranian guardsmen captured, disarmed, and humiliated their British counterparts. While the British tried to dismiss that as a rogue occurrence, it was anything but: Two days before, against the backdrop of allied efforts to sanction Iran at the UN Security Council, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared, “If they take illegal actions [such as sanctioning our nuclear program], we, too, can take illegal actions and will do so.” And, indeed, he did.

If the British are going to earn Iranian respect, they must lay down the law and punish Iran for its actions. The West must isolate Iran until its government seeks penance for all its violations of diplomatic norms. It’s time the West shutters all its embassies in Tehran.

There is good news, however. The Iranians have finally shown their hand: They may dismiss the efficacy of sanctions, but they certainly seem afraid of new sanctions. Now that Tehran has shown sanctions hurt, perhaps it’s time to pile on and grind Iran’s banking sector to a halt. After all, what will Iran do to protest? Seize Zimbabwe’s embassy?

There’s an old Egyptian joke that goes something like this: One Egyptian sees a friend on the street and asks, “Did you hear about that huge car accident in front of the Arab League building?” The other exclaims, “No! Something happened at the Arab League?”

It may be headline news that the Arab League has expelled Syria, but the Arab League stopped being relevant about five minutes after its founding in 1945. Still, the willingness of fellow Arab regimes to isolate Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad is welcome news.

Diplomatic isolation is easy, but what comes next is the hard part. After all, neither Arab leaders nor their Western counterparts had any difficulty isolating Saddam Hussein after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, but they still enabled him to stay in power for another 13 years, during the course of which the Iraqi people suffered tremendously and Iraq became a source of great instability.

Arab leaders have never achieved a lasting consensus. Some even did a pretty good business helping Saddam bypass sanctions, and they will be able to do likewise with Bashar. Hezbollah’s rise in Lebanon will allow that Mediterranean country to become a smuggling lifeline for its overbearing big brother next door. The American withdrawal from Iraq will also enable the Iranians to secure their supply route to Syria in order to shore up Assad’s crumbling regime.

So, Bashar al-Assad may be isolated, but isolation alone won’t force him to step down. Neither diplomacy nor sanctions are ever enough to bring rogue rulers in from the cold. The late Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi’s behavior should have put an end to that conceit.

Until Arab leaders and the West undertake a strategy for regime change—or a Syrian general decides to put an end to his country’s misery—Bashar’s Syria will remain a festering sore.

Ayatollah Khomeini may have founded Iran’s Islamic Republic in 1979, but for the regime in Tehran, his revolution has never really ended. Iranian politics remain a vortex of factional struggle as hardliners and reformists compete to shape the regime’s character. American diplomats have long cheered the reformists, believing that should reformists triumph, Iran might moderate and return into the family of nations.

In reality, however, the struggle between reformists and hardliners is more style than substance. Both embrace Iran’s nuclear program, support terrorist groups, and violently oppose Middle East peace. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s hardline president, shocked the West with his virulent Holocaust denial, but his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami also embraced Holocaust denial, just more quietly.

The Islamic Republic’s true Achilles’ heel is not factionalism, but rather the Shi‘ism upon which it is based. Shi‘ite Muslims embrace a religious hierarchy somewhat analogous to that in Roman Catholicism but instead of having cardinals select a single pope, every Shi‘ite picks his own personal pope from amongst the leading ayatollahs. Shi‘ites then show their allegiance by paying religious taxes to the ayatollah they embrace.

Here’s the problem: Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, calls himself the Supreme Leader and claims both ultimate political and religious authority. Most Shi‘ites don’t buy it. Not only do most Iranians not pay their religious taxes to the Supreme Leader—preferring instead more moderate ayatollahs in Iraq—but the Iraq-based ayatollahs daily contradict Khamenei. This creates a crisis of legitimacy for Iran.

Every Iranian knows that Iran has faced two major, violent revolutions in the 20th century: seven decades before the Islamic Revolution, there was a constitutional revolution. In both cases, clerics in Iraq helped coordinate the opposition. Simply put, a free Iraq is kryptonite for Iran’s leaders.

Khamenei’s strategy is to suppress Iraq with militias. He seeks to impose through the barrel of a gun what isn’t in Iraqis’ hearts and minds. Khamenei wants a compliant little brother, not a democracy next door. Last year, three different grand ayatollahs told me they feared an American departure would mean a repeat of 1991. Then, a precipitous withdrawal foreshadowed bloodshed, dictatorship, and, ultimately, more war.

The next American administration faces a number of decisions. Can the United States afford to let Iraq slip into Iran’s shadow? If so, might the American withdrawal strengthen Iran’s hardliners? Alternately, if Iraq is too important to accept Iranian dominance, how can the United States help Iraq resist Iran without boots on the ground?

This item first appeared on CNN’s security clearance blog.

This post is part of an ongoing series preparing for the AEI/CNN/Heritage National Security & Foreign Policy GOP presidential debate on November 22. See the rest of the posts here.

Engagement with Iran was Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy issue. During the Democratic primaries, Obama promised to meet the leaders of Iran “without preconditions.” Less than a week after taking office, Obama told al-Arabiya’s satellite network, “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Obama subsequently sent Iran’s supreme leader two letters seeking dialogue.

Iran’s leadership dismissed all of Obama’s entreaties out of hand. When Obama waived preconditions, Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad asserted their own, not the least of which was an American withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. When the United States suggested opening an American diplomat-staffed visa office in Tehran, Iran’s leadership said no. When the American Navy sought a hotline to defuse any crisis in the Persian Gulf, the Iranian government said that if the United States just left the region, then there would be no chance of a crisis.

Nothing Obama did was new. Every president since Carter has tried to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically. Carter had sent letters, which were returned. Reagan had sought to negotiate over American hostages. Like Obama, the elder George Bush had extended an olive branch during his inaugural speech. Clinton became entranced with reformist President Mohammad Khatami’s call for a “Dialogue of Civilizations.” George W. Bush repeatedly allowed his diplomats to sit down with their Iranian counterparts.

The track record for their diplomacy is poor: Iran remains the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, its ballistic missile program has expanded to the brink of intercontinental capability, and the regime appears to be on the brink of break-out nuclear weapons capability. The reformists upon whom the White House pins its hopes argue with their hardline rivals not about whether Iran’s nuclear capability is right or wrong, but rather who deserves credit for advancing it so far. Khatami’s aides have gone so far as to brag that they duped the West with their dialogue of civilizations rhetoric.

Because neither diplomacy nor narrowly constructed sanctions have worked, it might be useful for the next occupant of the Oval Office to consider what has: In 1981, after years of fruitless diplomacy, Khomeini suddenly agreed to release American hostages. The reason was not some new diplomatic initiative, but rather the outbreak of war with Iraq: Suddenly, the cost of Iran’s isolation had become too great to bear.

After two years, the Iranian military finally pushed back the Iraqi invasion; Khomeini swore Iran would keep up the fight until Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein fell. There followed six years of stalemate. In 1988, with Iran’s economy decimated and a generation lost, Khomeini finally reversed course. Declaring his decision like drinking a chalice of poison, he agreed to a ceasefire. The cost of pursuing his revolutionary policy had simply become too great to bear.

If the next administration aims to force Tehran to reconsider its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it must raise the cost of Iran’s nuclear program beyond the breaking point. Any serious candidate should explain which strategies they will employ not only to bring Iran to the table, but to raise the cost of defiance beyond Tehran’s tolerance.

This post is part of an ongoing series preparing for the AEI/CNN/Heritage National Security & Foreign Policy GOP presidential debate on November 22. See the rest of the posts here.

For decades, American presidents and secretaries of State tied U.S. national security to stability in the Middle East. Arab dictatorships might not be pretty, but if they were pro-American, the United States could tolerate them. The Islamic Revolution in Iran reinforced this dynamic, as fear of political Islam led the United States into an ever-deeper embrace with regional autocrats.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian-American sociologist persecuted by the Mubarak regime, described regional autocrats and theocrats as mirror images of each other. Dictators monopolize state media, while Islamists monopolize the mosques. Both recruit off the specter of the other and unite only to attack mercilessly the liberals who seek the ground in between.

While President Bush sought to break this dynamic, the State Department quickly reverted to business as usual. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for democracy in Egypt in 2005, less than two years later, she pointedly avoided the term during her return visit to Cairo. In 2006, Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, told Egyptian students that Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak was so popular, he could even win an election in America.

Dictators get old, however. Even if Tunisians and Egyptians had not risen up to overthrow their leaders, pinning American security to septuagenarian and octogenarian autocrats seldom makes a solid long-term strategy.

With the old order collapsing, the next occupant of the White House has little choice but to reorient the American approach to the region. However, because the United States for so long deferred to dictators and delayed pushing for reform, the liberals remained weak and disorganized.

The new president will need to decide whether democracy in the process is more important than democracy as the final result. Should the United States remain neutral to all political contenders if doing so guarantees a Muslim Brotherhood victory? Or should the United States try to build the capacity of liberal, non-Islamist parties? Should the United States ever recognize the legitimacy of a political party contesting elections if that same party also wields a militia, as does Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah? Further, if Muslim Brotherhood affiliates win elections fair and square, as they did in Tunisia, is it in the interest of the United States to recognize, subsidize, and work closely with the new governments? Lastly, how should the United States react if, as the new regimes rewrite their constitutions, they turn from democracy toward theocracy?

This post is part of an ongoing series preparing for the AEI/CNN/Heritage National Security & Foreign Policy GOP presidential debate on November 22nd. See the rest of the posts here.

Turkey was a key American ally throughout the Cold War. As one of only two NATO countries to share a border with the Soviet Union, Turkey proved pivotal not only to the defense of Europe but also for American interests in Asia. The Turkish army fought alongside U.S. troops in Korea. Americans embraced Turkey not only for its strategic role, but also for its values. The Turkish government was decidedly Western-leaning. Turkey may have been majority Muslim, but most Turks saw their future tied more to the West than the Middle East.

Over the past nine years, however, Turkey has changed. No longer can Turkey be called a democracy. The Pew Global Attitudes Project now ranks Turkey as the most anti-American country it surveys. Reporters Without Frontiers ranks Turkish press freedom below even Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Turkey has imprisoned more journalists than even China and Iran. As Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has sought to Islamize society, Turkish women have lost both their equality and safety: The murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent since Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party took power.

Erdoğan has reoriented Turkey’s foreign policy as well. Turkey now not only embraces the Arab world, but it allies itself with its more radical factions: Turkey endorses Hamas, Hezbollah, Sudan’s genocidal dictator Omar al-Bashir, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Whereas a decade ago, the alliance between Turkey and Israel stabilized the Eastern Mediterranean, today diplomats worry that Turkey’s antagonism toward both Israel and Cyprus could lead to military conflict in the region. In September 2010, Turkey raised eyebrows at the Pentagon when it held secret war games with the Chinese air force without first alerting Washington. Because Turkey increasingly is the obstacle to NATO consensus, its future in the defensive alliance may now be open to question.

Any new president will be faced with serious decisions regarding Turkey. Should Turkey remain in NATO? If so, should the United States share its next generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, Predators, and AWACS aircraft with Turkey? Lastly, if Erdoğan fulfills his promise to use the Turkish navy to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza, leading to a fight between two traditional American allies, on whose side will the White House be, and what actions would the new president take?

Muammar Qadhafi may have been captured alive in Sirte, but it wasn’t long before his dead body was being paraded through the streets of Misrata, a town pulverized by Qadhafi loyalists. The United Nations is predictably demanding an investigation into his alleged summary execution by forces loyal to Libya’s new government. The UN’s outrage is misplaced, though. We should all be glad Qadhafi is dead.

International justice has become a multi-billion dollar industry in which trials last years and justice is seldom served. Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević died in prison more than four years after his trial began. Liberian dictator Charles Taylor first appeared before the Special Court for Sierra Leone on April 3, 2006; there is still no verdict. While Western diplomats believe a trial provides catharsis and allows for a new beginning, the opposite is actually true: Trials infect open wounds and seldom promote healing. True reconciliation requires beginning with a clean slate. Before his own death and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s capture, Hume Horan, the State Department’s most talented Arabist of the past 50 years, spoke of the importance of seeing Saddam dead rather than on trial. “So long as his pug marks can be seen in the morning around our campfire, Iraqis will not sleep soundly,” Horan wrote in a November 2003 email, adding, “He must be killed… We can pooh-pooh the likelihood of his ever making a comeback. But just that simple word ‘comeback’ must bring on a fainting spell for the likes of Governor [Iskandar] Witwit [of Hillah], who saw his brother’s head hacked off in front of him.”

The international justice industry should back off. It is too infected with its own agenda. When Saddam was captured and put on trial, Human Rights Watch (HRW) refused to provide the Iraqi prosecutors with evidence it had gathered about chemical attacks on Kurds unless the Iraqis agreed to waive capital punishment. HRW might believe they are enlightened, but Iraqis simply saw them for what they were: armchair imperialists.

Perhaps the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wants to investigate the circumstances of Qadhafi’s death; bureaucrats always want to feel relevant, and tilting at windmills is a UN pastime. But the first question he should ask is if his expensive quest will enable reconciliation or hamper it, and whether justice is best served by Westerners in three-piece suits, or by the Libyans themselves who have put a definitive end to their 42-year nightmare.

In the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement of an alleged Iranian plot to strike targets in Washington, D.C., the policy community is debating about whether the terrorist plot was truly sanctioned or instead a rogue act planned by individuals without the knowledge of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

If the evidence is as damning as the White House claims, asking who or how many within the regime sanctioned the plot is besides the point: With Iran approaching nuclear weapons capability, the fact that anyone could pursue an operation to strike at a foreign capital should end any notion that deterrence or containment can work against the Islamic Republic. It also moots any attempt at diplomacy: Cutting a deal with Iran’s foreign ministry and pretending the Qods Force doesn’t exist would be about as inane as trying to cut a deal with Fatah and pretending Hamas didn’t control half the Palestinian territories. Oops, well at least the State Department is consistent.

It’s important to deal with reality rather than try to debate it away. After all, when faced with a Soviet missile threat in Cuba, the Kennedy administration did not waste time debating whether Nikita Khrushchev personally ordered their deployment vis-à-vis other elements in the Soviet Union. The fact that the missiles were there was enough. Likewise, when Muammar Qadhafi’s operatives bombed a Berlin disco, Reagan wasted no time debating whether the terrorists obeyed Libya’s chain of command. It’s time to insist that just because rogue regimes act in rogue ways, they are no less responsible for their actions.

 

 

For the leaders of enemy regimes, finding useful idiots among the American press corps must be about as hard as shooting fish in a barrel.

•    Asma al-Assad, the wife of murderous Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, was the subject of a glowing feature in Vogue.

•    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can count on NBC’s Ann Curry to provide him a propaganda outlet, while the Office of the Supreme Leader often treated Barbara Slavin, formerly of USA Today, as a go-to reporter who would accept uncritically and amplify Iranian propaganda.

•    The New York Times’s Tom Friedman must do the literal equivalent of “getting a room” whenever his writing turns toward praising China’s one-party state and its leaders.

•    Mahmoud Abbas has, of course, basically anyone at The New York Times, where traditional reporting long ago gave way to opinion and analysis under the guise of news.

Now it’s time to add another bullet: Time Magazine has lent its pages, at least virtually, to an interview filled with soft-ball questions and unabashed puffery toward Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s thuggish prime minister. The interview is here. And here are topics the good folks at Time Magazine never found time to cover:

•    By Turkey’s own statistics, the murder rate of women in Turkey has increased 1,400 percent since Erdoğan took over.

•    While Time provided a basis for Erdoğan’s anti-Israel obsession, they never questioned him on:

—His endorsement of an internationally recognized al-Qaeda financier;

—His embrace of crude anti-Semitic tropes;

—His acceptance, less than a year ago, of a human rights prize awarded by and named in honor of Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi;

—Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds, its threats to use military force against Cyprus (one-third of which Turkey occupies in contravention of international law), or his embrace of Sudanese president and indicted genocide perpetrator Omar Al-Bashir;

—Erdoğan’s refusal to condemn Hamas terrorism and even acknowledge that Hamas rockets and bombs are terrorism.

•    The imprisonment of several dozen journalists and Turkey’s plummeting rank in freedom indices.

•    Corruption in Erdoğan’s inner cabinet, and perhaps even among his own family.

As for their hagiographic rock star description, if Time’s reporters were more interested in reporting the news rather than simply hanging out with the rich and powerful, they might have noted the absence of any Turkish representatives—but the presence of Jordanians, Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and others—during Morocco’s recent conference on democratic transition and constitutional reform in the Middle East. If some Egyptians perceived Erdoğan to be a rock star, then many other Arabs perceived the Turkish leader to be not the Beatles, but rather Beatlemania, a staged throwback to the past. Then again, the Moroccans and their neighbors were more interested in focusing on the issues at hand rather than cheap anti-Israel populism, so perhaps that was of no interest to Time.

It is a shame that American journalists become so enamored with cults of personality and dictator-chic attitudes that they fail at their main tasks: accurate reporting and incisive interviewing.

If leading from behind is the first rule of the Obama doctrine, then its second defining feature is the disconnect between an adversary’s behavior and its reward. Over the last year, Turkey has sided with Iran on the nuclear issue, held secret air force war games with China without first informing the Pentagon or NATO, threatened to initiate military action against Israel and Cyprus, and made anti-American rhetoric a staple of the Turkish ruling party’s proxy press.

So what is Obama to do? Not only does the White House remain intent on selling Turkey the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, replete with stealth technology which Turkey could leak to its friends and our adversaries, but now, according to Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House has approved provision of predators to Turkey. According to a report in the Turkish press:

“We will definitely resolve this problem and definitely make the Anka [Turkey’s own unmanned aerial vehicle prototype] operable,” one procurement official said. “In the future, the Anka definitely will become the most useful asset in fighting terrorism….” As success has been delayed in the Anka program, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced last week in New York, after a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of a U.N. gathering, that Washington would provide Turkey with advanced Predator drones. Turkey first asked for both unarmed and armed versions of the Predator nearly three years ago.

So not only is Obama intent on providing classified technology to a country which threatens the use of force against American allies, but it also will provide Turkey with American technology that the Turkish government also wants to produce for its own commercial purposes. What could possibly go wrong here? What next for Obama? Sharing warhead designs with the Iranians?

Michael Rubin

Yale Loses Its Edge

By Michael Rubin

September 28, 2011, 10:26 am

For decades, residential colleges have both been Yale University’s chief selling point and the feature by which the university differentiates itself from its Ivy League companions and other top tier universities. All freshmen are subdivided randomly into one of 12 colleges, remaining affiliated with it for four years and living there for three or four years. The net effect is that the colleges provide a sense of community—the chief benefit of a small college experience—with the classroom and campus resources of a much larger university. In a society in which identity groups often self-segregate themselves, the residential colleges also enable Yalies to meet a diverse array of people.

While in theory each residential college is equal, over time, they develop different characteristics. Each college is led by a master. Some masters are disinterested: When I was an undergraduate, I was in Davenport College. In my freshman year, the master was a professor of 19th-century Germany and ran the college like a Prussian general. In my subsequent three years, the master was a retired admiral, who, it turned out, was retired not only from the Navy but also from anything which required effort. In contrast, when I was a graduate student, I was for a year a resident graduate affiliate in Pierson College. Harvey Goldblatt, a professor of medieval Slavic literature, was master and quickly catapulted Pierson into the envy of all other colleges: He knew each student not only by name, but also made an effort to interact with everyone. He cheered on the residential college’s intramural sports teams, and even undertook his own alumni endowment to allow, for example, a spring break trip to Italy for most seniors. Behind the scenes, he was involved in administrative issues and stayed on top of everything from employee morale in the dining hall to the length of time scaffolding remained up after work was completed.

Alas, Yale has changed. In the twelve years since I have left New Haven, faculty members tell me that the number of administrators has almost doubled. While Yale University once encouraged autonomy among students to set up organizations, fix problems, and take responsibility for their own decisions, today, an ever-increasing number of deans get involved to regulate all aspects of life and administration. Whereas Yale students could once choose to excel in extracurricular activities or academics, today there is little differentiation: grade inflation and administration intervention has evened the playing field so that a lazy and irresponsible student will, from his or her record, appear equal to one who in the past might have been able to differentiate themselves academically.

The quest for equality and the bolstering of safety nets has not only blurred distinctions amongst students, but also faculty. At some point, administrators—for whom bureaucracy rather than education is a career—decided that it was unfair to have inequality among colleges. After all, if a college master managed to energize both students and alumni, students in other colleges might resent that another master was not up to the job.

Enter President Richard Levin: Replicating what too often happens in liberal society, rather than celebrating success or encouraging competition to keep up, Levin instead sought to encourage mediocrity by “equalizing” the college experience. Alumni who have donated money to their college will now find that their money has been put into a general fund. Perhaps the university will assure donors that their donation did go to the college, but the university—according to multiple faculty members—will simply reduce the budget allotment to the college by the same amount. At the same time, deans regulate what college masters can sponsor and how often: When I was a resident affiliate in Pierson, the college brought in perhaps 50 speakers over the course of an academic year to interact with students, often in intimate settings over dinner. Now, with the university’s embrace of mediocrity, it would be hard to bring in one-fifth that many, because the administration dissuades competition.

Governments and administrators can take two general approaches to governance: They can try to create equality of opportunity, i.e., an even playing field, or they can try to create equality of experience. The first encourages competition and individual liberty, while the second embraces paternalism and mediocrity. Certainly, there is something very wrong at Yale when administrators choose the latter.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has formally submitted an application to the United Nations for that international body to recognize Palestinian statehood regardless of ongoing territorial disputes with Israel.

While the press will focus on the immediate aftermath—violence in the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli reaction, and who voted for or against—the move is a game-changer in a number of ways.

•    Goodbye, Land for Peace. Since the Camp David Accords in 1978, the basis of the Middle East peace process has been land for peace: Israel would offer land, and Arab partners would outline the degree of peace which they would provide. What Abbas is now doing—with majority international support—is demanding territory unilaterally without offering any peace. Add to this reversal of past diplomacy the possibility that Egypt will “revise” its peace agreement with Israel to remove the peace component, and all bets are off.

•    Is Foreign Aid an Entitlement? The Palestinian Authority has received billions of dollars since agreeing to the Oslo Accords, but this aid was predicated on acceptance of Israel and acceptance of the peace process. If the Palestinians have violated this quid pro quo, then Congress should not approach the cut-off of aid as punishment, but rather as necessary to shore up the very foundations of diplomacy. Agreements must mean something, not simply provide an a la carte menu of optional clauses.

•    Right of Return? Abbas, in his speech, has cited the “catastrophe” that befell Palestinians and led to the creation of a Palestinian refugee problem. Never mind that many of the Palestinians who claim to be refugees aren’t refugees according to the definition of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza—part of historical Palestine—are not technically refugees since they never left their “country.” The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has its own special definition for Palestinian refugees. If the UNRWA definition of multigenerational refugees were applied to the disruption that accompanied the partition of India, then today India and Pakistan would host 140 million refugees. If the Palestinians now have a state, however, then they will have in effect undermined one of their key demands: The right of return to Israel proper. That will force Abbas to either welcome the many Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and other Arab countries to the West Bank and Gaza, or be in the hypocritical position of informing them that Palestinian Arabs are not welcome in Palestine.

•    Retroactive Occupation. Until now, the West Bank has technically been a disputed territory rather than an occupied territory. This is because there never was a state of Palestine, the Palestinians had rejected the original partition of Palestine and therefore the territories assigned to them, and the international community never formally recognized the pre-1967 Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza. But if the international community, with a show of hands, recognizes the disputed West Bank territories as part of Palestine, then it changes the legal framework of the dispute. This gets complicated even further by the fact that the United Nations Human Rights Commission, back in 2002, legitimized terrorism against civilians to resist occupation. Many human rights advocates in the United States believe that international law keeps peace. Unfortunately, thanks to Mary Robinson’s stewardship at the Commission, in this case humanitarian law actually encourages murder.

•    The Palestine Model, Exported. What happens in Palestine doesn’t stay in Palestine. The Palestinians are not the only people who lament their lack of statehood. The Kurds, especially in Turkey, lament the fact that they are the largest people without a state. The Baluch in Pakistan and Iran have waged a violent separatist campaign for decades. Republika Srbska would like to secede from Bosnia. Basque terrorists demand freedom from Spain. In the Western Sahara, the Algerian-backed Polisario Front has conducted a decades-long terrorist campaign against Morocco. The terrorists whom Pakistan supports in Kashmir make the violence wrought by Palestinians appear the stuff of amateurs. Now, the Turks, for example, can claim that there has never been a Kurdish state and so they are not guilty of occupation. But certainly the Kurds want their freedom and should they be able to rally the international community to retroactively recognize their occupation, then all bets are off.

The 1815 Congress of Vienna helped establish the modern system of diplomacy. Diplomats may believe they are voting for Palestinian aspiration or, perhaps, for an opportunity to embarrass the United States. They are wrong, however: For a number of reasons, they are voting for precedents which undercut the very basis of international diplomacy and promise to usher in a period of conflict not only in Israel and the Middle East, but much more broadly across the globe.

The Frank Ricciardone Prize for Sycophancy is named after Francis “Frank” Ricciardone who, as the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, famously sought to ingratiate himself to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he told an Egyptian audience that Mubarak was so popular in the United States, he could even win elections there.

In August, Pamela Spratlen (a career diplomat, like Ricciardone), who is ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, won the prize after the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek posted an enthusiastic birthday greeting to Kyrgyzstan’s president on its Facebook page. It was less diplomatic nicety and more reminiscent of the sycophancy third-world flunkies show to their leaders.

This month, the Ricciardone Prize shifts away from the State Department and instead goes to Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade Francisco Sanchez. According to a Turkish press report, during a visit to Istanbul, Sanchez effused that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was “like a rock star” during his recent trip to North Africa. Never mind that the swing Erdoğan took through Egypt and Libya was replete with Israel bashing and apologetics for Hamas. Whether or not Sanchez leaves Washington again anytime soon, one place he should avoid is New York, even if he wants to see the rock star who will be speaking at the United Nations. Speaking to Turks about Istanbul, Sanchez remarked, “I think this city puts New York to shame in terms of vibrancy, it is an exciting place. I finished the weekend feeling this is the right place to be.”

In all seriousness, shouldn’t it be possible for American officials to compliment other states without bashing the United States? And can’t American delegations understand that such gushing praise for foreign officials isn’t simply politeness, but actually gets twisted by somewhat autocratic regimes as a means to imply endorsement and undercut opposition?

Back in 2002, the UN Human Rights Commission—a body which many human rights advocates argue that, along with its successor Council, contributes to the basis of international law—voted to affirm terrorism. As I explained in the Wall Street Journal at the time:

On Monday [April 15, 2002], France, Belgium, and four other European Union members endorsed a U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condoning “all available means, including armed struggle” to establish a Palestinian state. Hence, six European Union members and the rights commission now join the 57 nations of the Islamic Conference in legitimizing suicide bombers. By their logic of moral equivalence, terror is justifiable because its root cause is Israel’s occupation. That Palestinian terror predates occupation, or that suicide bombings became a tactic of choice only after the initiation of the Oslo process, is too inconvenient to mention.

The affirmation for terrorism was made murky by the legal status of the West Bank. There had never been a Palestinian state, and so the territories which Israel seized during the Six-Day War were disputed territories, rather than those of an occupied country. When countries vote to retroactively make the West Bank and much of Jerusalem the territories of an occupied country, what they will be doing is giving a green light, under the UN’s concept of humanitarian law, to target civilians anywhere, anytime, by any means necessary. Tomorrow’s vote will not be one of morality, but rather the antithesis.

Even before this current crisis, I’ve written about the changes in Turkey, for example here and here, and testified in Congress on the topic, here. Over the past few days, I’ve been covering the new crisis between Turkey and Israel over at Commentary’s “Contentions” blog, for example, here, here, and here.

It seems, however, that while the confluence of evidence of Turkey’s change overwhelms even former U.S. ambassadors to Turkey who normally can be relied upon to spin events in a positive direction, the Obama administration is completely oblivious and living not only in a fantasy world, but actually making matters worse. Against the backdrop of the 9/11 anniversary, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a new counterterrorism body which the United States would co-chair with Turkey. At the same time, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu had this to say, according to the Turkish press (emphasis added):

“Israel has not yet fully understood the change in the region and has condemned itself to complete isolation,” said Davutoğlu on Sunday, referring to the Egyptian protesters’ attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Friday, adding that the demonstrations were not the result of Turkey’s recent actions toward Israel. “[Israel] despises and plays with the people’s honor in this region,” Davutoğlu said, adding that Turkey would continue to highlight Israel’s unlawful acts in all international platforms.

So the Obama administration encourages Israel to go to the United Nations. That body sets up the Palmer Commission to examine the law and the Mavi Marmara incident and finds in Israel’s favor. The Turkish government, which provoked the incident in the first place, throws a temper tantrum. The foreign minister promises to drag Israel through the mud in every forum and at every opportunity. So what does the State Department do? They sign off on a Hamas-supporting, virulently anti-Semitic, and anti-Israeli regime to chair a new forum from which they have already promised to bash Israel.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI