A Message from the Executive Director

1 downloads 254 Views 311KB Size Report
Other places that have known lots of change in recent years -- Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank .... When the White House wa
A Message from the Executive Director View this email as a webpage

Follow the Institute on

(Please use this corrected version of Rob Satloff's letter outlining his Soref Symposium address to the board of trustees.) Friends, This week, in a special address, President Obama offered his view of the "Arab Spring" in the process presenting a major -- and controversial -- statement about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I had the opportunity to assess the President's peace process comments in an Institute analysis and in an Institute breakfast forum broadcast by C-SPAN (check their video library). I am taking the opportunity of this letter to forward to you the broader remarks I delivered last week at the annual meeting of the Institute's board of trustees, held at our Soref Symposium. I hope you find them worthwhile.

2011 Soref Sympsoium

"I first visited the Middle East thirty years ago next month. I traveled first to Israel as a collegiate journalist, covered the Israeli election campaign of that year, spent election night at Moshe Dayan's election headquarters and watched him at the twilight of his career, crossed the Sinai on a bus, spent time in Cairo, got myself arrested trying to climb the pyramids, and basically did the things that a neophyte Arabic speaker and daredevil college student would do on his first trip to the region. I mention this because I do not think the Middle East has seen as much change in the thirty years since I first visited as it did in the last 150 days. In the words of Winston Churchill, "There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction." And that applies to the Middle East.

Ten Observations on Change in the Middle East Change has come in different shapes and varieties. After thirty years, it took just eighteen days for Egyptians to be rid of Mubarak, the second longest ruler since Ramses II. And, remarkably, it was relatively peaceful. Ditto for Tunisia. In Libya, the regime has fought back and is, surprisingly, battling not just its opponents but America and NATO to a draw. In Yemen, the outcome is uncertain. In Bahrain, the regime fought back and won, with lots of help and support from the neighbors. In other kingdoms -- Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia -- the calls for change have been more muted, for numerous local reasons. Other places that have known lots of change in recent years -- Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank -- have seen virtually none in recent weeks. And in one place most people thought immune to change, Syria, the regime is fighting a vicious war against its own people. To help us think coherently about this tsunami of change, let me offer ten observations: 1. We are still in the first act, the opening inning, the first hole of a 72-hole tournament -- pick your metaphor. When the wave of change is over -- and we might not even know when that is -- the region will look a lot different than it does today.

2. Change will look different in different places. One of The Washington Institute's core principles is that it is a mistake to view the Middle East as a single, unitary region, an "Arab world." Instead, it is wiser to recognize the power of individual states. The same reality dominates today. Some in the region may think that Tahrir Square heralds a return to pan-Arabism; they are wrong. In fact, there isn't much to return to -- pan-Arabism was dead long before Arabs buried it, and it remains dead today. Each country has its own story to tell. 3. Let's embrace the change that is positive and hopeful. Arabs focusing inwards on ways to improve their own societies is unambiguously good. They may make mistakes along the way; after all, it took America many decades to get it right and we still have a lot of work to do. But campaigning for democracy -- the type of real democracy for which millions turned out in Tahrir Square -- is something we should marvel at and should support. 4. On a strategic level, the opportunity to strike blows against Iran are real and powerful. Whatever one thinks about the protests in Bahrain, it must give Israel great succor to know that the Saudis and Emiratis are actually willing to fight for something, i.e., to prevent what they believe would be an Iranian beachhead on the Arabian peninsula. And in Syria, the idea that a key link in the Iranian-inspired chain that goes from Tehran to Beirut to Gaza (with a dotted line to Ankara) may be weak and possibly severed is a strategic bonanza of huge proportions. 5. That's the good news. It could be very good. But the bad news is bad. It could be even worse. 6. The fate of Egypt is now up for grabs. At best, the coming period in Egypt -- a country that is the foundation of America’s standing in the region -- will be bumpy; at worst, it will be dangerous and threatening. When a good scenario envisions a parliament comprising 40 percent Islamists and Amr Moussa as president, we're not in Kansas anymore. Please remember how profoundly important Egypt is to everything we care about, in size, geography, and strategic significance. We have had the luxury of taking it for granted for a generation -- a luxury no more. 7. In Libya, U.S. policy is deeply problematic. While I believe the administration did as well as humanly possible in handling change in Egypt in January and February, I believe we have fumbled the ball vis-à-vis Libya. The administration's split-the-difference policy, committing enough military force to protect civilians but not enough to bring this to a speedy conclusion, degrades our standing throughout the region. We have now been engaged in fighting longer in Libya -- a country that Chad fought to a draw a few years back -- than it took to defeat Iraq's vaunted army in 2003. The result is a potential stalemate. This is terrible on multiple fronts. It emboldens the bad guys throughout the region to choose Qadhafi's violent path, rather than Mubarak's path of resignation. It raises doubts about our intentions and capabilities. And it distracts us from engaging forcefully in far more strategic circumstances, like with Syria. 8. Let us not forget the real strategic context -- the contest against Iran, both in terms of its regional influence and in terms of its nuclear program. We have an opportunity to strike a huge blow against Iran's regional influence by tightening the noose on Asad -- and I am pleased to learn that more and more Israeli strategic thinkers are moving in that direction. At the same time, we should not be sanguine about the impact of Libya on Iran's nuclear program. If you are sitting in Tehran, you see a country that seven years ago made a deal with the international community to give up its nuclear program today being bombed. I am sure that the lesson learned in Tehran is "get a nuclear bomb as fast as possible." 9. We are witnessing dark days for the cause of peace. The hope we felt when members of the board heard the soothing words of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayad in November -- and they were real, I am convinced -has given way to a different reality. I can offer you a strategic assessment of what drove Hamas and Fatah into this uneasy embrace -- an embrace that I remind you could collapse any day but an embrace nonetheless -but at the core, the reason was a recurring cancer that has afflicted the Palestinian national movement for decades, a cancer that sometimes goes into remission but a cancer nonetheless. It is the fatal attraction of unity over progress. In the Middle East, you can't have both. Israel learned this lesson more than sixty years ago and made the choice for progress toward statehood rather than unity within the Zionist movement. Palestinians still have not made the same choice. 10. The current moment permits a lull in the great contest over the fate of the U.S.-Israel relationship, a lull occasioned the focus on intra-Arab politics, the rebellion in Syria, the Hamas-Fatah deal, etc. But those who

argue that, in such circumstances, "Bibi is off the hook" or "the peace process is dead," don't really appreciate either the political realities of the U.S.-Israel relationship or the invincibility of the Middle East peace process as part of U.S. foreign policy. If the peace process didn't exist, it would have to be created, precisely because it is a vehicle to mediate the contradictions in our relations between building strong ties with Israel and with Arab states like Saudi Arabia at the same time. If the sense of urgency is on the back-burner today, then the Julia Child's of our foreign policy will put it back on the front burner before long. And if the U.S.-Israel relationship appears more settled today than in recent years because of the distractions elsewhere, which have temporarily muzzled the realist critics of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, they will come back with a vengeance. That is especially the case when the situation in Arab countries worsens and everyone looks for third parties to make concessions to shore up against an impending disaster. When that happens, all eyes will be on Israel and what Israel can do to solve a broader regional problem.

An Indispensable Resource With this as context, I can say, without hesitation, that this is the most complex moment I have ever seen for U.S. policy in the Middle East, a moment of great fluidity, change, and uncertainty, and as such a moment of greatest opportunity for the Institute. It is at times like this that we, an institution that has invested heavily in expertise, in human capital, can really make a difference. We already have -- in terms of being an indispensable resource throughout the past 150 days of change, as we have been through five administrations -- and I believe that our role will only grow. When the White House was trying to determine how to deal with a tottering Mubarak, they called us for advice. When Secretary Clinton gathered a very small group to re-think the fundamentals of U.S. Middle East policy, she called us. When Admiral Mullen's staff needed to strategize about the impact of change on U.S. posture in the Gulf, they called us in. When the National Security Council needed to think about new options for Syria, they called us. When experts at the Fifth Fleet wanted a briefing at the height of the Bahrain turmoil, they called us. When CENTCOM's J2 had a spare two hours to think about what all the change in the Middle East means for the people who are fighting three wars, they called us, and we had dinner together. And the list goes on. They don't always take our advice, but they always listen. And that's what counts.

Institute Priorities and Projects What to do about it? I believe we need to focus on priorities. We have just distributed to all of you a booklet which outlines a set of major projects for which we are seeking special funding. Together, they reflect those priorities. A project on building the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship: How to strengthen the foundation of this partnership at this moment of great uncertainty A project of the Iran Security Initiative: How to leverage hard power and soft power to effect real change in Iran Project Fikra, our special initiative to empower Middle East democrats to counter radical extremism: How to prevent America from sliding into a mindset which sees Islamists as the natural, authentic inheritors of change in Arab states and instead promote pro-West, pro-peace, pro-liberal

Click to view the booklet

alternatives to the Muslim Brotherhood A project on Palestinian incitement: How to generate new ideas that tackle this organic problem in Palestinian society and political culture that impedes any real progress toward peace The Ataturk Initiative, a project of the Turkish Research Program: How to clarify to American leaders the reality of Turkey under the AK Party, a once-allied country that has chosen a path inimical to our interests, and to instead offer Turks a hopeful alternative that rebuilds our historic alliance based on common values and real common interests No less important than any of these specific projects is the need to invest now in a great opportunity to expand our reach through a new approach to communications that projects the brilliant output, brilliant analysis, and creative ideas of our outstanding research staff way beyond our current narrow circle of inside-the-beltway consumers. We need to finally bring an end to the idea that The Washington Institute is the best kept secret in Washington. Time to Act Our new goal should be bold: We should aspire to a status such that no serious discussion about the direction of U.S. Middle East policy -- in government, in congress, in editorial rooms, board rooms and seminar rooms around the country -- can proceed without taking account of the ideas and analysis of the Institute. We should aim to expand the number of people who consumer our material by a factor of ten, from 7,500 to 75,000. With persistence, creativity, and investment, we can reach our goal. These are some -- not all -- of the major projects we have either launched or are about to launch. I believe they can make a huge contribution to advancing our national interests in the Middle East. In their respective fields, each of them has the potential to be a real game-changer. This is, I am convinced, a time to act. To that end, I traveled to Cairo last month to see for myself the turbulence and hope of change and reported my findings in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Later this month, I travel to Israel with two senior U.S. policymakers to implement "phase one" of our project on the future of U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation. This is especially urgent because, in my view, the New Middle East is coming face-to-face with the Old Middle East in Iran's relentless drive for a nuclear bomb. We need to move now, and we need your help. Thanks to you, we have built the finest collection of expertise on the Middle East in the world -- the envy of every intelligence agency and certainly the envy of every think tank in Washington. Now is the time to make that investment pay off for the values we hold dear."

After I spoke, I was deeply touched by the fact that a wonderful trustee -- Richard Goodman of San Francisco -- rose and said he was so moved by this presentation that he would pledge an additional $100,000 to the Institute this year if the assembled trustees could reach a goal of $1 million in "new money" pledges by the end of the day. It was a bold and audacious challenge -- appropriate for what I believe is a bold and audacious vision for the future of the Institute. As a trustee of the Institute, you should take great pride in the fact that we met -- and exceeded -- Richard's challenge. If you would like to participate in the special projects I outlined, or would like to discuss ways to enhance your own investment in the mission of the Institute, please contact me or speak with one of our regional development directors. Best wishes,

Robert Satloff Executive Director P.S. Look for a copy of this letter in the mail. I encourage you to share it with friends and colleagues. Click here to

forward this email or download a PDF version.

We are a 501(c)(3) organization. Read more about The Washington Institute.