What Obama Didn’t–And What We Should–Learn From The War In Afghanistan

By Barry Rubin

This article discusses why the United States was in Afghanistan, why it failed to achieve its goals, why the Obama administration set the wrong goals, what Obama didn't tell the American people, what he failed to learn, what he should have done, and wider lessons showing the incompetent and counterproductive policies of this administration.


I am in favor of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, but I was fascinated–in a negative way–with how President Barack Obama handled the issue. He didn’t deal with any of the real issues or the consequences. It was a speech by someone who doesn’t understand what’s been going on in Afghanistan or the world generally, a man with no real background in international affairs or military matters.

read more

And The New Leader of the Free World Is...Saudi Arabia?

This article is published on PajamasMedia

By Barry Rubin

Since the United States is not leading the anti-Islamist forces in the Middle East or protecting the relatively moderate Arab states, the new leader is...Saudi Arabia.

But, you say, isn't Saudi Arabia also Islamist? Well it's as Islamic as you can get without being revolutionary Islamist. Isn't Saudi Arabia profoundly anti-Jewish? Yes, but it mostly just talks about it. Isn't Saudi Arabia anti-democratic? Yes, we'd prefer the United States but President Barack Obama is busy with other things.

Obama wants Middle East Muslims to love America. There are only two problems:

1. His policy doesn't work. They don't love America.

2. The Muslims he keeps appealing to are those who are radical and pro-terrorist. For those who are Muslims but don't want to overthrow their neighbors, go to war with Israel as soon as possible, throw out U.S. influence, and transform their countries into something like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, Obama is a problem.

So the Saudis are doing what I've been telling the Obama Administration to do for 2.5 years: Form an alliance opposing revolutionary Islamism. Of course, the Saudis won't include Israel (at least publicly) and they won't get Europe, but at the moment they're all we've got.

This was completely predictable. Some weeks ago, Nawaf Obeid, who speaks for the Saudi government, wrote an important op-ed piece saying that the Saudis were fed up with the Obama Administration. So he voices the Saudis' anger and disappointment with a U.S. government that fails to fight against revolutionary Islamism and protect the Saudis from Iran.

I've been writing about this split for two years and now it has happened. The thing is that the Saudis are right and Obama is wrong.  The Obama Administration helped overthrow the Egyptian regime and was ready to help bring down the government in Bahrain. The Saudis have had enough. The Jordanians would do the same if they could, as would Israel.

And there are plenty of countries in South America, Central Europe, and Asia that also feel this U.S. government has let them down.

Wasn't this the U.S. government that was going to win over the Muslims, make the Arabs love America, and make the United States popular again?

Saudi Arabia has plenty of shortcomings. It won't even let women drive! But at least it won't let Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood get in the region's driver's seat.

Obama At AIPAC: Beneath The Flattery, He Revealed His Indifference to Israel’s Needs and His Tilt Against It

This article is published on PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin

I expected President Barack Obama’s AIPAC speech would be a bunch of feel-good clichés to persuade the audience that he is Israel’s best friend. Thus there would be nothing worth analyzing in it. But as I read the speech carefully I was astonished at how thoroughly Obama reveals his underlying miscomprehension, indifference, and even hostility toward Israel.

Examine this speech and you see everything wrong—far more than in his Cairo or State Department speeches on the Middle East—with Obama’s view of Israel and why he cannot be trusted on this issue.

There are some remarkable Freudian slips in his formulations and they have nothing to do with his discussion of the framework for Israel-Palestinian peace.

He spoke at great length of his support for Israel, how he wants it to be strong and secure, and the common values of the two countries. Yet if he really thinks that, why didn’t he say such things in his State Department speech on the Middle East or elsewhere?

Obama stated:

“We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood….When I went to Sderot, I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket. And when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I grasped the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.”

Yet his regional policies have undermined Israel’s security:

--Without getting anything from Hamas (the group that shoots rockets at Sderot) he pressed Israel to reduce sanctions against Hamas, helped bring into power a pro-Hamas government in Egypt, and sent $400 million in U.S .taxpayer money that objectively strengthens the Hamas regime.

--By not actively opposing Hizballah and Syria taking over Lebanon, thus increasing the threat on Israel’s northern border.

--By waiting so long before he moved on Iran sanctions and by failing to support the Iranian democratic opposition.

--By acting as apologist for the Syrian terrorist-sponsoring dictatorship.

--By not keeping U.S. promises to Israel on countering Hizballah’s return to southern Lebanon and arms’

--By helping create a situation in Egypt that will definitely lead to a radical, anti-American, anti-Israel takeover and probably leading to an Islamist regime there.

--By becoming an apologist and booster of the most anti-Israel (and Islamist) Turkish government ever he has done nothing to help Israel deal with the enmity of its closest regional ally. Obama quickly capitulated to the Gaza flotilla.

--By never really criticizing or pressuring the Palestinian Authority on anything at all, even when it rejected his initiatives, broke its promises to him, or made him look foolish. Consider Vice-President Joe Biden’s temper tantrum about a Jerusalem zoning board okaying a construction project in the distant future to the administration’s basic indifference to ongoing PA incitement and the naming of things against terrorists who murdered Israelis.

That’s not a complete list.

(Incidentally, Obama doesn't even seem to grasp the existential fear of U.S. Arab allies about Iran's power or Islamist revolutions that will wipe them off the map.)

He may talk a good game on Sderot and Yad Vashem but in practice his policies have largely ignored the points he made to AIPAC.

“Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels.”

Obama is correct that U.S.-Israel military cooperation remains quite strong but his policy shows he definitely does NOT understand the challenges Israel faces.

“Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Nice words but in fact Iran is finding a lot of loopholes; Obama is not cracking down on Russia, China, and Turkey (to name the three main countries that are helping Iran).

“As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination, and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.”

As you already know, the Obama administration has distinguished itself by the minimum it has done regarding Iran’s repression of the democratic opposition. And how has the U.S. government stood up to Hizballah? In fact, it has most definitely NOT stood up to Hizballah.

“And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.”

Once again, though, the opposite is true. Up to Obama’s recent State Department speech, the administration’s talking points were NOT to condemn the agreement but to take a wait and see approach. Even Obama’s discussion of the issue in his major speech did not attack the agreement (much less pressure the PA against doing it) but merely said that they would have to prove to Israel they were going to adhere to the Quartet conditions. Indeed, the PA and Hamas have already come up with clever ways to get around these issues.

“As I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination.”

In principle, Obama’s idea that we must do something quick to resolve the Israel-Palestinian issue because of current conditions (I’ve been hearing that exact line for 40 years) sounds nice. In practice, though, here’s what it amounts to: The Palestinians are intransigent. They should not be punished. Israel must make more concessions.

Obama doesn’t take the Hamas threat seriously, nor does he take a real tough line on incitement. The only thing he presses the PA on is that it should talk, not that it should give.

Consider this carefully:

“There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.”

So Obama doesn’t say that the Palestinians are trying to circumvent negotiations with Israel and mutual compromise! No, their problem is that they are too eager for peace.

Ok. Here’s a quiz for you: If the Palestinians are impatient with the slow pace of progress, who is responsible for the lack of progress? If the Palestinians are so eager to make a deal, the fault must be with…Israel.

That paragraph is a Freudian slip on Obama’s part. Yet since the PA wouldn’t negotiate for two years, including almost nine months during an Israeli construction freeze, that would throw into question its eagerness.

(I recall how in 2000 we were told the same thing about Arafat being in a hurry to make a deal. Then when he refused to negotiate more and went to violence, the same people told us how foolish we were in rushing him!)

“But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative.”

Think about how this is totally in contradiction to the history we lived through. The march to isolate Israel internationally will continue no matter what Israel does, whether it is involved in talks or now. Why? Because the goal of those behind it—mainly the Western leftists and Islamists—is to destroy Israel.

Again, though, there’s a Freudian slip here. For Obama’s failure to recognize the motivation means he doesn’t understand the problem. And Obama has contributed to the delegitimization of Israel. What’s he saying here: Israel hasn’t given enough and made enough concessions to move the peace process forward and that’s the reason for growing hostility to Israel.

That means he doesn’t realize the sacrifices Israel has made for the cause of peace: withdrawing from Sinai, southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank; losing more than 2000 people murdered by terrorism; and so on.

Israelis have drawn the precise opposite conclusion. If years of demonstrating our desire for peace, making concessions, taking risks, and empathizing with Palestinian suffering has only intensified the hostility toward us, perhaps that hostility isn’t our fault and is due to something else.

On that point, Obama is totally clueless. For him, Israel still needs to prove it wants peace. But the PA doesn’t.

One more Freudian slip. Israel isn’t doing enough to keep the Palestinians to abandon negotiations. So the fact that the PA doesn’t want to make true peace is…Israel’s fault once again.

Incidentally, can you imagine Obama talking about how Palestinian and Arab behavior might create an “impulse” of Israel “to abandon negotiations”? Of course not.

Obama can quote the Talmud but he can’t deal with the impending catastrophe in Egypt. How can he speak at AIPAC and not mention that the most important country in the Arab world is moving quickly to tear up its peace treaty with Israel, end sanctions on Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and create a massive new security problem for Israel! A fitting symbol of his total indifference about, “How difficult that search for security can be.”

On the surface, President Obama’s speech to AIPAC will reassure many about his care and commitment to Israel. Yet a careful reading of the speech shows the exact opposite.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.

U.S. Policy: To Understand the Middle East Why Not Study The Real Middle East?

This article is published in PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

A lot of people may think that I’m too tough on President Barack Obama and the New York Times. Yet every day they do something that—despite my high suspicions and low expectations—amazes me.

Consider a New York Times article, “Obama Seeks Reset in Arab World. First, the concept of “reset” was invented by the Obama Administration and has been used by it to describe the new policy about to be announced on the Middle East. One could not possibly think of an idea more unsuited to the region.

Reset implies starting over, forgetting everything that has happened before. Yet there is arguably no part of human society that is more obsessed with history than the Middle East. You have people ready to die and kill to realize a vision of society from more than twelve centuries ago, a reborn country that had been destroyed more than nineteen centuries ago, and the world’s longest-lasting continuing conflict that has been going full steam now for more than six decades. And those are only three examples.

Who thinks like this, that you can press a button and have history disappear? Americans, or at least a certain kind of American. The concept of reset is so remarkably ignorant and doomed to fail that it is shocking that the great geniuses who guide America haven’t thought of this problem. To my best knowledge not a single person has pointed out this fatal flaw though everyone in the Middle East innately understands it!

The Arab world isn’t erasing history so much as reliving it, heading back to the 1950s and 1960s, but with revolutionary Islamism replacing Arab nationalism. And that’s even worse.

Then there is this shocking quote from the same article:

"Obama has ordered staff members to study transitions in 50 to 60 countries to find precedents for those under way in Tunisia and Egypt. They have found that Egypt is analogous to South Korea, the Philippines and Chile, while a revolution in Syria might end up looking like Romania's."

I’m not a big fan of this type of political science, which never produces useful results. But leaving that aside, doesn’t anyone notice a few details? Revolutionary Islamism doesn’t really exist as a national factor in those countries. Neither does radical Arab nationalism. The three countries mentioned as being like Egypt are in fact dominated by a basic pragmatic approach, an absence of dominating ideology, a strong social flexibility.

No matter how many degrees he might have anyone who would use such a method as a guide to policymaking on a life-and-death issue is a fool. (Oops! There goes my hope of a job in the Obama Administration!)

Now, in about 400 words and taking about three minutes of your time I have explained why the current policy plans of this U.S. government are doomed. Why not instead study Egyptian history and society, the Muslim Brotherhood, and things like that?

Yet I suspect there is one more hidden factor here. The American government has this thing called the State Department and sections of the Defense Department that do this kind of thing. There are people who have been following Arab politics and ideology and the military for decades. Why not call on them for their analysis?

I think that Obama is instead turning to his clueless National Security Council staffers (the ones who wanted Husni Mubarak overthrown in 24 hours) and left-wing academics or think-tanks, and a couple of pundits (the names Zakaria and Friedman have in fact been mentioned) instead. The result is going to be something of a combination of hilariously stupid and the kind of policy that ends up setting off wars and getting tens of thousands of people killed.

But then if your advisors deny that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist anti-American group favoring genocide against Jews—indeed argue it is sort of secular—what can one expect? If the courtiers keep calling you the smartest president in all of history how are you going to correct your errors?

Now if one could only reset Obama’s worldview….

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/politics/12prexy.html?_r=1

Obama's Middle East Speech: The Opposite of Strategy Is Catastrophe

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

Please be subscriber 24,134 (daily reader 41,734). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

President Barack Obama’s big Middle East speech is extraordinarily important. I think that it has been largely misinterpreted and deserves a very detailed examination. Forgive me then for analyzing it at length but that’s necessary to understand both Obama’s thinking and policy.

First and foremost, this could be called Obama’s George Bush speech. The intention was to find some way to make the main priority of U.S. policy the support of democracy in the Arab world. This is precisely the theme that Obama’s supporters ridiculed when Bush did it. So Obama had to find some way to approach the issue without anyone realizing he had copied Bush. He succeeded! No one seems to have caught on yet.

One of the tricks is that he began by saying that he was opening “a new chapter in American diplomacy.” But in his main theme he wasn’t doing that at all. He said, “The United States supports a set of universal rights.” Isn’t this in a real sense the exact opposite of multiculturalism? Doesn’t it contradict everything Obama and his supporters have stood for up to now?

Bush, whatever his failings, combined a policy of supporting democracy with one of fighting revolutionary Islamism. If Obama only supports revolutionary change and goes soft on America’s enemies, his policy will promote revolutionary Islamism.

Obama claimed, “Now, already, we've done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts.” In other words, Bush is to be identified with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama is to be identified with ending those wars successfully and promoting democracy.

Second, this was not a speech about Israel-Palestinian issues. On the contrary, he was trying to find a framework for pushing that question onto a backburner. Here he failed completely. Since Obama has such low credibility with Israel and its supporters, some relatively band statements blew up into such a huge crisis that some are describing it as the end of the traditional U.S.-Israel alliance.

The main problem with Obama’s speech is not what he said about Israel but what he said about developments in the Arab world.

Basically, the difficulty is that he embraced change in the Arab world with no strategic sense whatsoever and not even a gesture toward the dangers involved. Obama wanted to put himself on the side of the “Facebook kids.” It is an approach that has nothing in common with a serious approach to foreign policy.

Everything about the upheavals is good according to Obama. He has zero comprehension of the revolutionary Islamist threat. For Obama there is only al-Qaida (bad); the existing regimes (bad) and those who want freedom and democracy (good). There is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no mention of Hizballah.

“Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow.” Here he refers to Egypt and Tunisia. Who are the more who might follow? Obviously, Libya is implied here and also Yemen. Yet these eight words contain much of the huge flaw in Obama’s policy.

On one hand, no U.S. ally is given an exemption. There is nothing in the speech to indicate that Obama does not favor the overthrow of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Morocco, or Algeria. Have no doubt: These governments will see this speech as favoring their demise.

On the other hand, there is no special emphasis on the overthrow of America’s enemies. There is no explicit call for the overthrow of the Iranian and Syrian governments, nor of Hamas in Gaza, now keeping Hizballah out of power in Lebanon, nor the mass-murdering regime in Sudan.

It might be noble and consistent for Obama to say, “If America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change- with change that's consistent with the principles that I've outlined today.” But what that means is, for example, that friends will be treated the same way as enemies.

This is one more example of the upside down, non-strategic, absent of all concept of national interest that characterizes Obama’s policy. President Obama is no foreign policy Realist.

Obama stresses that al-Qaida is faltering. True. But other Islamists are advancing. I won’t list all the examples here but there are a dozen of which Obama never seems to take notice: Muslim Brotherhood gains in Egypt; Hizballah on the verge of power in Lebanon; Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip; Turkey joining the enemy camp; Iran still going full-speed ahead toward nuclear weapons.

Iran and nuclear weapons? There are three mentions but what is one of the most important factors in the region barely registers. One of those is to say that having nuclear weapons doesn’t benefit anyone. That should be a laugh line.

As I’ve said before, a basic concept of this administration is that al-Qaida is the enemy because it attacks America. Yet the much larger strategic threat posed by revolutionary Islamism—Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, smaller groups, and with Turkish government cooperation—is not perceived as a threat.

That is a catastrophe.

Most of the speech is a celebration of the revolutionary upheavals as if they were the American civil rights’ movement (he mentions Rosa Parks) or indeed the American Revolution.

What he wants to do is an extension of his view on domestic politics: get on the side of the people, encourage rebellion, and everything will work out all right.

And here is all he says about the threat to that rosy picture:

”Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:”

Really? What did Obama say about 2011 that might not be said about Iran in 1978? Or before the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power?

After the leading candidate for the presidency of Egypt predicted an Islamist majority in parliament can the president of the United States not have that disaster on his mind? Notice how he says “short-term interests.” But why can’t countries follow a path totally opposite to a Western concept of democracy, an Islamist dictatorship?

And why can’t the results be the opposite of “align perfectly” and be totally in opposition to U.S. interests? Why can’t the results be catastrophic for U.S. long-term interests, as the revolution in Iran was?

There were gestures toward women’s rights and a sentence on Christians. But notice how these are just put in to cover the administration. The Christians of Egypt are mentioned but not those suffering far more in Iraq. The problem must be portrayed as narrow not symptomatic of a much wider intolerance and extremism.

What could Obama have easily said? Something like this:

We favor forces of stability and democracy but recognize that there are powerful forces that want to divert these revolutions into the creation of new, anti-Western dictatorships that will add more decades of suffering and bloodshed to the region. We stand with the moderates and oppose those radical forces, recognizing the dangers of the current moment. Past revolutions have shown how things can go wrong and we are aware of this possibility.

We also recognize that in countries like Iran, Syria, and Libya, and also in the Gaza Strip, that there are especially brutal dictatorships incapable of reform and dangerous to regional peace and our interests. We will oppose those governments and favor their departure from the scene.

But there is no hint that such ideas have entered Obama's mind or those of the advisors to whom he's listening.

Finally what does Obama propose as his great policy for implementing his ideas?

Answer: He’s going to send money. But in foreign policy as on domestic issues this is not a solution. Consider all the aid the United States gave to Egypt or the Palestinians. What political advances did that bring?

And all the money won’t be enough. Food prices are rising. Egypt will continue to be anarchic. A democratic state will suffer a bigger crisis than a dictatorship under such conditions.

So that’s it. Obama’s policy is to cheer the revolutionaries, boo the dictators, and send money.

That is not a strategy, it’s a formula for catastrophe and the destruction of U.S. allies and interests in the region. Moreover, when anti-American radicals--the Brotherhood, other revolutionary Islamists, radical nationalists, and far-left parties--dominate Egypt's parliamentary elections in September (an outcome that is 100 percent predictable) this Obama policy will collapse overnight.

I’ll write about the aspects dealing with Israel and the "peace process" separately.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

America: Once A Leader Now Brags About Being A Follower

This article is published on PajamasMedia

By Barry Rubin

I'll bet your mother said to you at least once: "If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it also?"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Libya reminded me of that kind of admonition:

"I would point out that Europe led the way in our response on Libya, and they were fully supported by the Arab League. So with respect to Libya, the United States is very willing to be part of this coalition, and we have contributed a great deal. But it was concern from Arab leaders and European leaders at the United Nations that really moved us forward with respect to Libya."

This is a very unusual U.S. government. It is eager to show that it isn't a leader. The underlying belief is that America must prove it isn't a bully so that the rest of the world will love it. What's important, however, is that in international affairs the strong are criticized but also get respect.

There is a strain in American political culture, from the founders, of not wanting to be too pushy in international affairs. At times in history this could shade off into isolationism, though that's pretty unlikely in today's world. Before the United States entered World War One, there was a slogan explaining that policy: Too proud to fight.

What the assassination of Usama bin Ladin proved is that America can get things done when it wants to do so. And also that it can act alone when necessary. It is less proof of President Barack Obama's brilliance and courage than it is of America's ability.

The question that must be foremost is whether a given action is in U.S. interests NOT whether it polishes the U.S. image. A willingness to be unpopular at times is a necessity for any country that wants to survive and prosper.

Just because the Arab League says it's ok is not a sufficient criterion for U.S. foreign policy to do something.

To be fair, I understand that this isn't precisely what Clinton is saying. I'm sure she would add that the intervention in Libya is in U.S. interests. But I still don't think that's true.

Moreover, this argument about what everyone else does becomes the rationale for not doing more about Iran or Syria. And one fears it will shape mistakes yet to come.

The Myth of President Obama's Middle East Speech

This article is published in PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

I don’t want to speculate about President Barack Obama’s Middle East speech. I’ll wait to hear it. But the opening line in the New York Times story about the forthcoming presentation tells us all we need to know:

“Mr. Obama will have a chance to reshape the debate on Thursday, when he delivers a major speech on the region at the State Department.”

Which debate will he reshape? The debate in the Middle East? Absolutely not.

The struggle between revolutionary Islamists, on the one hand, and everyone else will continue. Iran will still be going full speed ahead not only on developing nuclear weapons but also in subverting lots of countries. Syria will continue to shoot demonstrators. Egypt will still be headed toward a radical and perhaps even Islamist regime. Israel will go on facing a Palestinian leadership that won’t make a compromise peace. The Saudis and other Gulf Arab states will still know that the United States isn’t protecting it properly from Iran. The Turkish regime will continue its quiet Islamization of the country and developing alliance with Iran. And so on.

Perhaps Obama thinks that by making a speech he will reshape that debate. But he won’t. It’s hubris.

Either the New York Times headline writer just took the lead to make the headline or has a sense of irony in titling the article: "As Uprisings Transform Mideast, Obama Aims to Reshape the Peace Debate."


Does Obama think that liberal Arabs will be encouraged by their struggle by a few words of encouragement from the president when he has done nothing to help them in Syria and Iran? Does he think that the “Facebook kids” in Egypt who now organize violent demonstrations against Israel will love America?

Perhaps it will reshape the debate within the United States? But that’s just talking about distant problems. Most likely he hopes to reshape the debate over the competence of his policy without actually affecting the events in the region.

What needs to happen instead is that U.S. policy must be reshaped in the face of the regional realities that it persists in ignoring.

No matter what he says remember that reality.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

The Foreign Policy Elite and Bureaucracy Starts Parting Ways with Obama

This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

"Please release me let me go
for I don’t love you anymore
To waste our lives would be a sin
Release me and let me love again."

--"Please Release Me Let Me Go"
By Barry Rubin

Perhaps the most important policymaking development of the last month has been President Barack Obama’s increasingly visible loss of a lot of the foreign policy elite, including considerable segments of the State and Defense departments. Why this is happening is one of the most interested—and highly neglected—stories of this period.

Consider the factors involved:

--Most of the foreign policy elite is liberal and for this reason they were enthusiastic about Obama and contemptuous of his predecessor, George W. Bush. You already know a lot of this story. Obama combined several irresistible qualities for them including being apparently polished, cosmopolitan, and “smart.”

Of special importance, Bush had embarrassed them in front of the foreigners they dealt with. They were ashamed of his policies. If America was unpopular, they were unpopular. That’s why the idea that Obama would make foreigners love America again was of such huge importance for them.

But now Obama is embarrassing them because while Bush was disliked as a reckless cowboy, now Obama is seen as something just as bad: a naïve amateur.

--There is something of huge importance that few people understand in the distinction between those who focus on domestic policy and those who deal professionally with international affairs. Domestic policy elite members can be liberal or leftist to an unlimited extent. Since all of the factors are within the American system, they can believe that everything is controllable and everything is doable. They can also identify the “enemy” as political opponents within the system, meaning those who are rich, corporations, etc.

To be part of the foreign policy elite, however, is very different.

First, one must possess an element of realism. You cannot, in contrast to domestic staff or experts, merely imagine the ideal health policy according to your theories or believe that spending can be unlimited. Instead, you must deal with existing situations in which information, control of events, and resources are limited.

Idealism, at least openly expressed, is not respected. Someone who insists that solutions are painless and cheap is more likely to be sneered at than cheered at. At some point the facts smash down the door.

Second, it is much harder to cover up mistakes for very long because they are just too visible and undeniable. Consider the Egyptian revolution. One might have insisted that it was wonderful in February but not possible to do so in May. You can maintain that revolutionary Islamism is not a real threat before September 11 but it is harder to do so afterward.

Professionals have to deal with the uses of power and violence—which is why the left’s answer to a serious study of international affairs is the joke subject of “conflict resolution—of containment, credibility, and commitment.

S. Powers may sit in the White House and talk about protecting foreign civilians as the highest priority of U.S. policy but those who have to deal with such issues must ask the question: How do we decide where that applies? And they might also remember little examples of that philosophy like Somalia.

Can the foreign policy elite so easily forget the importance of maintaining allies and the fundamental principle of helping your friends and hurting your enemies? They loved Obama for stressing multilateralism—a large part of their job is building such links—but are starting to be cross with him for abandoning American leadership and sabotaging the relationships they have spent lifetimes building.

Or, to put it in a single sentence, it is far easier—and more rewarding career-wise—to be pragmatic and moderately liberal rather than starry-eyed and too far to the left. Where a domestic affairs Obama groupie may get a thrill up his leg from the president, American allies and hence large elements of the foreign policy elite gets the feeling of a noose around their necks.

Third, some specific aspects of international affairs contribute further to the need to be realistic and tough-minded. There are quite a few academics who hate America but are teaching about international affairs and various parts of the world. Yet off-campus and in the actual world a certain element of patriotism is hard to ignore. The enemies are more likely to be external, foes of America, and the priorities are supposed to relate to strategic and economic interests.

There was a British joke -that shows us the key point here: We have the agriculture ministry for the farmers, the labor ministry for the unions, and the Foreign Ministry for the foreigners. Ah, but which foreigners?

Here is where the concept of “clientitis” comes in. Professionals tend to become advocates for those they deal with. That’s why Middle East experts, for example, are generally “pro-Arab” and “anti-Israel.” These people have based their entire strategy on building alliances with more moderate Arab regimes, namely Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the smaller emirates, and so on.

They don’t like revolutionary Islamists because they want to overthrow their friends and change the societies where they feel comfortable, aside from the threats to U.S. interests. Islamists have in the past targeted them for murder.

And so when their own government starts being nice to radical Islamists and overthrow—or abandons—their friends it makes them angry. The Saudis, for example, scream at them privately that the U.S. government has taken leave of its senses. Why is Washington dumping them in favor of Iran or Syria? Why should we pay you lobbyists, do deals with American companies, be nice to you diplomats and officers if Obama shows such disrespect for us?

Indeed, policies can make one's work harder and put one's life at risk. That's a big reason why a lot of foreign policy elite people hated Bush: their European contacts mocked America; their Muslim ones got angrier at America.

Let's say, for example, that people working in the armed forces and Department of Defense started concluding that the war in Libya made their job impossible because they can't fight three wars with the existing resources. Or that administration grandstanding to win reelection placed counterterrorism forces and intelligence-fathering at risk because it released too much information.
At that moment the member of the foreign policy elite starts rethinking his previous views of the president. People who deal with Central Europe hear complaints about Obama and Russia; those in Africa hear about this unfathomable neglect by the first “African-American” president; in Latin America they speak of Venezuela and in Asia of China.

Even in Western Europe, where Obama’s snob appeal was highest, there are now once again sneers about an inept American president who is so frustrating because he is, in his own way, another provincial American.

Of course, the military and those around it tend to be more conservative from the start. Yet much of the military and strategic foreign policy elite resented Bush’s Iraq war as either unnecessary or wrongly conducted.

Now they deal with a president who has involved them in a new, ill-defined war that literally not a single Pentagon official wants. He is unsympathetic to their culture and is now forcing them to spend as much time on sensitivity to gays as they have for life-and-death skills. The last Quadrennial Review—the Pentagon’s most important planning document—spent a lot more time on fuel efficiency and “green energy” than on terrorism. Many of them are starting to think that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and not worth pursuing.

Has anyone really thought through the implications of Leon Panetta being named as secretary of defense? Obama has already put in a colorless, inexperienced political hack as national security advisor (sorry to be mean but a lot of lives are at stake here). Here is the account of his hometown newspaper,  the Monterey County Herald, about Panetta's background:

"Panetta served eight terms in Congress, representing the Monterey area. In Washington, D.C., he earned a reputation as a budget hawk, working on budgetary matters, environmental causes and civil rights issues. He also repeatedly voted against President Ronald Reagan's military initiatives, particularly the administration's program of aiding Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

"He led an unsuccessful effort to convince the military to keep Fort Ord open, then presided over early reuse planning for the base. He also wrote legislation creating the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary."

In other words, someone who has no real background or knowledge on defense issues; a budget-cutter (good in principle but won't endear him at the Pentagon); historically focused on environmental and civil rights issues; and no friend of the armed forces except when it comes--hypocritically--to wasting money for his own district.

Oh, that's  going to work out real well!

This is only the beginning of discontent. Obama simply isn’t the inspiring leader on international affairs that they expected. And this unhappiness spills over into the media. If you want to see a prime example of this phenomenon, read Michael Gerson’s Washington Post article entitled, “Obama's serial indecision on the Middle East.”

It is devastating for anyone—and that means everyone—used to the idea that the media is in love with Obama and he can do no wrong in their eyes. Here’s a sample quotation

“It is no longer credible to blame these failures on inexperience - an argument that years of experience tends to undermine. A novice can learn from his mistakes. Obama apparently doesn't view these outcomes as mistaken.”

Once the foreign policy elite concludes a president cannot learn then they cannot enthusiastically support him. That doesn’t mean they will act politically against him. But their options are limited to: trying to mitigate the damage he’s doing, resign if they are appointees, or seek an alternative president if a better option seems available. And, of course, leak their discontent to journalists whenever possible to make it clear that the mess isn't their fault.

The honeymoon is over. Divorce proceedings are beginning.

U.S. Middle East Policy Becomes Clinically Insane

By Barry Rubin

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest pronouncements are just plain horrifying. Consider what she said in this interview:

On Egypt:

"QUESTION: Should we fear the Muslim Brotherhood?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we don’t know enough yet to understand exactly what they’re morphing into. And I’m – I mean, for me, the jury is out. There are some Islamist elements that are coming to the surface to Egypt that I think on just the face of it are --

QUESTION: Coming out of jails, in fact.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Coming out in jails, coming out of the shadows that are inimical to a democracy, to the kind of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience that was the aspiration in Tahrir Square."

"We don't know enough...."

Really? Read any speech or interview by the leader and deputy leader of the Brotherhood, full of Jihadist rhetoric, genocidal rage against Jews, insistence on making Egypt an Islamist state, and loathing of America. What's morphing?
Those people "coming out of jails"

They are openly holding joint meetings and demonstrations with the Muslim Brotherhood. I know it, why doesn't she know it?

"The jury is out"

And when will the U.S. government see the danger of the Brotherhood, after it takes power and starts down the road to war with Israel and open enmity to the United States?

The jury is as much out on the Muslim Brotherhood as it is on Usama bin Laden.

2. Syria

And here's another equally horrifying interview:

"Q: At this point, [Syria] is a country where they have killed most people in the street.

"CLINTON: Well, I don't have that comparison, but what I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed [Libyan leader Muammar] Qadhafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria."

So the U.S. government still hopes that President Bashar al-Assad will be a reformer? I won't bother to once again list all the evidence to the contrary both in his past performance and in understanding his interests.

But here is something remarkable. Clinton mentions Qadhafi. Yet Qadhafi did "reform" his foreign policy after he was scared, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, that he'd be next on the list. So pressure showed successful results in Libya while the Obama Administration's appeasement of Syria failed totally--and will continue to fail totally.

3. Hamas

But apparently the "jury is still out" on Hamas, too. What, we don't have enough information to evaluate that group? Perhaps it is "morphing?" The Obama Administration strongly criticized Israel for withholding the transfer of tax revenue tothe Palestinian Authority. Of course, that money is only due to be handed over according to the Oslo agreement, which the PA no longer observes.

American officials said the administration, is, “Waiting to see what this reconciliation agreement looks like in practical terms, before we make any decisions about future assistance.”

Memo to Obama Administration: A country doesn't just watch and wait as others trash its interests. It does something. When one of your clients, who you are ceaselessly helping and to which you are giving large amounts of money, joins forces with an openly genocidal terrorist organization allied with your worst enemies, how long do you have to wait to see what's going to happen?
From Clinton's first interview:

"We are losing the war of ideas because we are not in the arena the way we were in the Cold War."

Well, if you cannot define the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria as hostile you certainly are not in the arena. Imagine the Cold War in these terms! How long would the United States have been saying the "jury is out" on the nature of the Soviet Union?

But Clinton isn't that stupid. She's stuttering so much because she has to follow the president's political line, and that is very stupid indeed. And much worse, it is very dangerous.

Who Makes U.S. Policy? UN, Arab League, international community or U.S. Government?

This article is published in PajamasMedia. The text is published here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

This interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deserves close analysis for a reason that neither I nor anyone else noticed before.

"QUESTION: But, I mean, how can [Libya] be worse than what has happened in Syria over the years, where Bashar Asad’s father killed 25,000 people at a lick? I mean, they open fire with live ammunition on these civilians. Why is that different from Libya?

"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I --

"QUESTION: This [Syria] is a friend of Iran, an enemy of Israel.

"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were the passage of Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there was a condemnation that was universal – but that is not going to happen, because I don't think that it’s yet clear what will occur, what will unfold."

On one hand, what Clinton says is quite logical. It doesn't make sense for Western countries to send forces to Syria and start bombing. But that's not the issue. The issue is about supporting the Syrian opposition and really comprehending that Syria is an enemy of America whose regime deserves no quarter. 

Yet what does Clinton begin with as the reasons for treating the two differently? Let's list them:

1. "a coalition of the international community"

2.  "passage of Security Council resolution"

3. "call by the Arab League"

4.  "a condemnation that was universal"

But, she correctly concludes, "that is not going to happen."

Now, this is no way for a U.S. secretary of state to speak. What about U.S. interests? What about an independent American decisionmaking process?

Again, these steps might be appropriate for military action--which, again, is not the issue here--but let's recall, for example, how President George Bush set U.S. policy on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and then put together an international coalition on the basis of decisions made on the basis of U.S. national interests. That's the way it's supposed to work. Not the other way around.

Since Syria is an American enemy killing Americans in Iraq and backing terrorist groups to a degree exceeded only by Iran--which is its ally and also an enemy of the United States--why does the U.S. government need an international coalition, UN resolution, Arab League call, and universal condemnation to act?

At any rate, this kind of things certainly does not apply for taking a strong U.S. stance of diplomatic opposition, freezing all the concessions this administration has given to Syria, recalling the U.S. ambassador in protest, building an anti-Syria alliance, blocking Syria's takeover of Lebanon, working actively to eliminate Syria's Gaza client, supporting the Syrian opposition and trying to bring down the regime, punishing Syria for its surrogate warfare against the United States in Iraq, and so on.

But instead the kind of thinking this administration all too often represents turns over U.S. power and sovereignty to others.

Every American secretary of state from 1789 onward would be shaken and shocked by such thinking. They would say: No, the United States determines its interests, sets its policy, and implements that policy. Getting international support is an element in that process but it is a byproduct of U.S. interests and decisionmaking; not the other way around.

It is preferable that the United States act multilaterally if possible, but it is not the precondition for action either. Nor should trying to maximize foreign support require too much watering down of the measures taken or--in the case of the Iran sanctions--smoothing passage by giving exemptions to Russia, China, and other countries thus gutting the sanctions.

Similarly, the U.S. government should not become so obsessed with international popularity and multilateralism as to ignore it when countries stab it in the back, as Turkey's government did on the UN sanctions issue. Nor should it bring situations, as is happening with the unilateral Palestinian independence issue at the UN, in which the United States opposes something as dangerous but doesn't lobby energetically with other countries on it.

During the Cold War, the United States usually acted with coalitions under president after president. Even the supposedly obsessive unilateralist President George W. Bush put together an international coalition to invade Iraq.

Yet now broad international support has in many cases become the precondition for U.S. action or indeed formulating a U.S. policy at all. In other cases, the U.S. government  refuses to take leadership as if such behavior was a demonstration of high virtue. This kind of thing has become so common as to be accepted without anyone even noticing.

Clinton: The Situation is Unsustainable Because I Say So

This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is presented here for your convenience.

"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

God hath numbered thy kingdom, and brought it to an end.
Thou art weighed in the balances, and are found wanting.
thy kingdom is given to the Persians."

--The Book of Daniel, Chapter Five

By Barry Rubin

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a U.S.-Islamic forum that the U.S. government would soon launch a new initiative to promote Israel-Palestinian peace.

Oh, goodie.

But what really shocked me is something she said, proving once again that this administration's leaders have feet that spend more time in their mouths than on the ground:

"The status quo between Palestinians and Israelis is no more sustainable than the political systems that have crumbled in recent months."

Think about that statement. The Tunisian and Egyptian regimes fell. Was that inevitable? Were they simply unsustainable? What if their armies wanted to keep them in power, or just threw out the dictators and kept the same regime?

But wait! Several political systems did NOT crumble in recent months. At least, not yet. So is Clinton saying that the crumbling of the political systems in Bahrain, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen is also inevitable? Or is the fact that they have not crumbled in recent months mean they are sustainable?

Also does the fact that the United States supports or opposes a political system have something to do with whether it is sustainable? You know, saying things like: Mubarak must go! Yesterday! Or sending military forces to Libya? Now what if the Saudis send military forces to Bahrain to shore up the regime, does that mean its fall is or is not inevitable?

Might Arab leaders listening to such statements ask themselves if the United States views them as being on their death beds? Do they need to dump the United States before the United States dumps them? Does anyone writing these speeches and reading them publicly have any notion about what this sounds like to foreign allies?

But this is all you need to see to know the quality of leadership we are dealing with. Senator John Kerry at the same conference:

"When I visited with president Assad, what I heard from him was a man who understood the challenge of his country, in terms of those young people. he said to me, I have 500 thousand people turning 18 every year and I don't have the jobs to give them and I don't have the way to educate them. He understood where this was going to go months ago. But unless he can create a different bilateral relationship with us and with the West. Unless we move on the peace process with Israel . Unless we get this radicalism off the table for all of us, we make it so much harder to strip away the unholy alliances with Wahhabism, or Muslim Brotherhood, or whatever it is, and really face this challenge of the economy."

In other words, he starts out by saying that Assad (who has killed more people in the last two months than any dictator not fighting a full-scale civil war, that is Libya) is really a great guy. Then it sort of slides into resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict (which means to these people getting a Palestine state pronto) or the entire Middle East will fall apart. Of course this comes right after A. the Wikileaks showed us that this isn't the real concern of Arab leaders (it's Iran and revolutionary Islamism, stupid) and B. upheavals showed that people were more concerned about domestic issues rather than supporting their local dictator to fight Israel.

It's the Palestinian question, stupid, he seems to be saying, and then the economy.

But wait! We have not yet plumbed the depths of sheer idiocy. Let me repeat the last part of what Kerry said:

"...we make it so much harder to strip away the unholy alliances with Wahhabism, or Muslim Brotherhood, or whatever it is...."

Wahhabism? Isn't that Saudi Arabia, America's most important remaining ally in the Arab world, you know that big supplier of the oil that this administration won't drill on its own territory? Hey, dude, you just dissed the Saudis again!

Sure, Wahhabism has contributed to Islamist radicalism, but not so much in the Arab world itself, more in the West and places like Chechnya. Is he referring to America's "unholy alliance" with Saudi Arabia?

And is Saudi Arabia aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood? In the past they've gotten along but the Saudis seem to want to stop a Brotherhood takeover of Egypt more than the Obama Administration does.

Also, what does that "whatever it is" at the end mean? That Kerry, a leading candidate to be next secretary of state has no idea of what the other side in the region consists of?

Back to Libya for a moment. Is the United States trying to overthrow Muammar Qaddhafi, because his regime will inevitably crumble? Apparently not. So is his regime sustainable but the U.S. and other military presences only want to make it crumble in the eastern part of the country?

Was the fall of the moderate Lebanese government and its replacement by a Hizballah-dominated regime inevitable? Is the status quo in Iran more sustainable than the Israel-Palestinian situation?

Will Clinton make a speech saying that the uprising in Syria proved that the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship is unsustainable? No. Why? Because they fear it is sustainable and, as Senator John Kerry just reminded us again, he loves Bashar al-Assad and Clinton thinks he's a reformer.

I don't trust these people to decide what is and isn't sustainable.

The Israel-Palestinian situation, for better or worse, is infinitely sustainable. Yes, I said it and I meant it. That's not a preference or a value judgment but it is true. If the Palestinian Authority is not ready for compromise and real peace, the status quo is preferable.

What Clinton is doing is a panicky demand for swift action no matter what it is, no matter where it leads. Is the creation of a Palestinian state unilaterally in the next few months without any deal with Israel going to make things better because otherwise the situation will inevitably "crumble?"

Or perhaps it is inevitable that the Palestinian Authority will crumble either before or after it gets a state? Can she prove on the basis of any evidence that the Israel-Palestinian situation is not sustainable? What's going to happen to change it? The only factor that can do so is external forces like U.S. policy. What Clinton is expressing then is a self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps?

Perhaps most inevitably the U.S. position in the Middle East is unsustainable and will crumble?

That statement by Clinton shows a view of international affairs so passive and so primitive as to be shocking. Passive because she is essentially saying: the fact that these two regimes fell proves that they had to fall.

Even though she goes on to say that the United States must show "leadership" on the peace process, the philosophy displayed by this kind of formulation makes one wonder if this administration is capable of leading anywhere except...off a cliff.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin? Did some moving finger write that on the Oval Office wall?

Here's my interpretation:

Your rule has been judged unsustainable. 
Your policy is going to crumble.
Its giving regional primacy to the Persians.

Who Wants Democracy? And Who Gets American Backing?

This article appears on my blog at PajamasMedia here. Please visit my blog at PajamasMedia. If you reprint please link to the PajamasMedia site. The text is reprinted here for your convenience.

BENTLEY [American journalist]: “You gonna be a democracy in this country? You gonna have a parliament?”

ALI: I will tell you that when I have a country.
BENTLEY: Ha! Ha!…
ALI: Did I answer well?
BENTLEY: You answered without saying anything. That’s politics. You learn quickly.”
–”Lawrence of Arabia”

By Barry Rubin

In discussing recent developments in the Middle East the framework seems to be: this is the era of uprisings so now every Arab regime will be overthrown. There were indeed revolutions (though they were equally coups) in Egypt and Tunisia; a likely change of government in Yemen; and a civil war in Libya.

At the same time, it is important to analyze the nature of the specific events. Every country is different and the only two revolutions that succeeded–in Egypt and Tunisia–did so because the armies supported them. So a key factor (perhaps the key factor) is that if the armed forces don’t support the existing regime it will fall, but if the army backs the government there won’t be a revolution.

In Libya, if not for Western intervention dictator Muammar Qadhafi would have won by now. Yemen, where the military does not seem to be behind the government, is the most likely country to change regimes. In Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, political power is ultimately growing out of the barrel of a gun. None of this is a moral judgment or saying what’s good or bad but merely an analysis of the situation.

Ali Ahmad, a Saudi dissident who directs the Gulf Institute in Washington DC, has a useful summary of how the Saudi monarchy handled demonstrations there, called the Day of Rage:

“1. The ministry of the interior and armed forces went on the highest alert and deployed the largest number of police and Special Forces in around the country. This was the largest deployment in the country’s history.”

So governments that can depend on their armies will use them, kill people if they deem that to be necessary, and survive. Naturally, the more ruthless the regime, the more likely it is to win. And while the Saudi government is way up there in ruthlessness, in general terms the radical, anti-Western states are the most ruthless of all, as is now being proven in Libya.

2. “A large number of Salafi clerics lead by the mufti issued statements and fatwas barring protest….”

The regimes–including, of course, Iran and Syria, have their own pro-government, clerics to counter the oppositions and especially the Islamists. These clerics are not necessarily moderate, as we will see in a moment, but ironically if they’re more radical that can also make them more effective. The Palestinian Authority’s imams, for example, are just as bloodthirsty against Israel as those of Hamas but they support the existing regime.

“…Saad AlBuraik who is a pro government cleric and is famous for calling for taking Jewish women as sex slaves, held a program aired on 28 channels simultaneously to stand against the “Safavid plan” to destabilize Sunni land. The government threw all its effort in making this a sectarian issue, which was an effective tool.”

What is the “Safavid plan?” This is the kind of thing no Western journalist or policymaker understands and yet must be understood to comprehend what’s happening in the Middle East today. The Safavids were a powerful Iranian dynasty–Shia Muslim of course–that took power in the sixteenth century and extended its power into the Arabic-speaking world to challenge the Sunni rulers there.

So the Saudi line is that this is an attempt by the non-Sunni Shia Muslims–who Saudi Wahhabi Muslims hate–to destroy “proper” Islam. It is not democracy versus the Saudi monarchy, they say, but Shia versus Sunni, Persians versus Arabs.

This is an alternative version of the usual argument that everything is all the fault of Israel, America, and the West. Ahmad–who I greatly respect–like the dissidents in Bahrain (Sunni/Shia solidarity) and Egypt (Muslim/Coptic Christian solidarity) believes that the “people will see through it in few weeks.”

I don’t agree. Appeals to religion and national identity are very powerful in the Middle East. Thousands of people have died in Iraq as a result, though the problem is mitigated there by the fact that Kurdish identity and the fact that everyone is a Sunni trumps Islam in the north, while in the rest of the country people have an Arab identity in common to balance somewhat Sunni-Shia rivalries.

A specific problem in Saudi Arabia is the fact that the Shia Muslims, who mostly live in the Eastern Province where much of the oil is located and are about 10 percent of the population, are particularly discontented. They are be unhappy with the existing regime. This doesn’t mean that anti-government protests are a “Shia” thing. But the government can succeed in making them seem that way to most Saudis.

In Bahrain, the other Gulf monarchies including Saudi Arabia, have sent forces to help their fellow Sunni government survive there. The regimes, then, are not helpless. Indeed, they weren’t helpless in Tunisia and Egypt. What happened was that a large part of the regime backed the toppling of the individual who was dictator there.

Leaving aside Libya (an exception generally), where the outcome is not yet decided, and Yemen, where everyone always seems to be fighting everyone else, this is not going to happen elsewhere.

The radical regimes–Iran, Syria, Gaza (Hamas), and Lebanon (Hizballah)–have three advantages over the relatively moderate regimes. First, they have Islamism on their side and hence don’t worry about a challenge to their Islamic legitimacy. Second, they are the most ruthless. Third, they have client Islamist forces subverting all the other regimes but the West is not engaged in trying to subvert or overthrow them.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The GLORIA Center's webside is: http://www.gloria-center.org/. His blog is on PajamasMedia: http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/

Hillary Clinton Has a New Number Two

By Barry Rubin

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns is being promoted to deputy secretary of state, moving from the number three to the number two position in the State Department. Burns is a veteran Middle East specialist.

Why is this happening? The administration wants to show that it has someone with experience at the highest level. It is also signalling the importance of the Middle East.

Ironically, Burns has spent his three-decade-long career advocating things that are mostly the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration is doing. Will he be able to influence the White House to change its course?

Maybe. But Burns didn't get to where he is today by being a dissenter. Perhaps his final exam was the testimony he had to give last month in which he completely explained administration Middle East policy exactly the White House wanted.

The problem is that when one listens to his explanations it is easy to understand how disastrously bad that policy has been.

Libya Is To Obama as Iraq Was to Bush

By Barry Rubin

Let's begin with a quote from a Los Angeles Times story:

"The nascent rebel effort in eastern Libya has begun to fray in the face of chaotic battlefield collapses. For many rebel fighters, the absence of competent military leadership and a tendency to flee at the first shot have contributed to sagging morale. Despite perfunctory V-for-victory signs and cries of "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), the eager volunteers acknowledge that they are in for a long, uphill fight."

This is what happens when the United States gets involved in a war without knowing what's going on beforehand. What if the rebels collapse--and the no-fly zone and a few aerial attacks probably wouldn't prevent that.

Faced with a victory for dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi, the West can either:

A. Accept a defeat, help refugees fleeing into Egypt, admit tens of thousands of Libyans into the United States, and face the consequences of a vengeful Qadhafi or...

B. Escalate, send arms and advisors, perhaps some day combat troops to fight a war in Libya. Oh, and by the way, thanks to recent events neither Egypt nor Tunisia will provide a base of operations for such a war. And any American forces on the ground might be murdered by hardline jihadis on "our" side.

Of course, what's most likely for a while is Option C: Continue doing what they are doing now and pretending that everything's going great.

Welcome to Obama's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Of course, in Iraq, at least the United States started out with an impressive military victory. While the Bush Administration didn't fully understand the forces within Iraq and how to deal with them, it had a higher level of information and cooperation than does its successor in Libya.

The U.S. government has committed itself to protect civilians in Libya. If Qadhafi kills civilians does that trigger an all-out U.S. or NATO invasion of Libya? I'm not taking a position on this, just pointing out that it seems as if the Obama Administration never thought about it, and the media isn't asking this question either!

What happens if the rebels murder civilians? Will the U.S. army attack them?

President Obama's Failure to Support--With Words Not Guns--Iranian and Syrian Oppositionists Is A Disgrace

By Barry Rubin

At the moment in history when people are not just rebelling in the Middle East but when the opposition movements in Iran and Syria are at a high point, the fact that the U.S. government is standing by and not only doing nothing but virtually saying nothing.

No, it is even worse. For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually praised Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad. She said that "members of Congress" who have gone to Damascus (notably Senator John Kerry who should henceforth be known as an apologist for an oppressive anti-American dictator), have found Bashar al-Asad to be a "reformer."

Can anyone tell us what reforms he has made? This is a dictator who is Iran's chief ally; who has actively encouraged and helped terrorists in Iraq to kill Americans; who has tried to launch his own secret nuclear weapons program (stopped only by an Israeli bombing attack); who is chief backer of Hamas in killing Israelis; and who has reimposed Syrian control over Lebanon by using terrorism against Lebanese moderates.

And so, the secretary of state of the United States has praised a dictator who is murdering unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Syria. Mubarak, a U.S. ally and far less oppressive than Syria or Iran, was bad; but Asad, an enemy of the United States and a far more repressive dictator is good?

Note that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took a much tougher stance on criticizing Syria. I suggested that he was contradicting administration policy in doing so. Unfortunately, that assessment was correct. But good for Gates in taking a good stance. Presumably, he won't be around much longer. Note that he also correctly said that intervention in Libya wasn't a vital U.S. interest, again contradicting Clinton and the White House.

Let's be clear here: Administration officials are (deliberately?) misinterpreting what's they're being asked to do. The issue is not a Libyan-style military intervention but rather daily statements and covert aid if appropriate.

NOBODY IS ASKING THE UNITED STATES TO SEND MILITARY FORCES TO SYRIA OR IRAN. We are only asking that U.S. policy give support to oppositionists trying to overthrow repressive dictatorships that are America's worst enemies in the Middle East and--arguably--in the world.

Is that clear enough?

Remember covert operations? It's something the United States used to do during the Cold War, sometimes with great effectiveness. Doing something like that on the side of people who want freedom seems a good idea. But won't the regimes denounce the opposition as American agents? The fear of this seems to be one factor paralyzing the Obama Administration.

Guess what? They'll do it anyway! Every day and with every means at their disposal.

Yes, I know some claim that in his Iranian NewYear's message, President Obama did support Iranian oppositionists one time. But my reading of that statement is that it did the exact opposite, skirting the issues to avoid offending the Iranian regime too much.

It is time for the U.S. government to speak up. By making it publicly clear that the United States will not even end the engagement with Syria and start bashing it publicly, it is signalling the Syrian government that it can shoot down as many demonstrators it wants and torture people with no international consequences.

This is against U.S. interests, against democracy and freedom, and against common sense. If President Obama can say that "Mubarak must go" and "Qadhafi must go" why can't he at least say: "Ahmadinejad must go" and "Asad must go."

It's Official: The Obama Administration Will Do Zero to Criticize or Undermine the Syrian Dictatorship

By Barry Rubin

It's official. The Obama Administration won't do anything at all to help the Syrian people against the Bashar al-Asad dictatorship. Libya's Muammar Qadhafi is a bad dictator, but Bashar al-Asad is a good dictator?

The great Martin Kramer puts it perfectly: 

"Earlier I noted that the Arab League gave Asad a license to kill because Syria is "occupied." Now Clinton and Kerry have given him one because he's a "reformer." Asad hasn't carried out any reforms, still supports terror, has stockpiles of WMD, and even tried to build a secret nuke facility. But unlike Qaddafi, he cleans up nicely and his wife is chic. Asad gets a pass; Asads always do."

Ask yourself these simple questions: Which regime is more dangerous to U.S. interests? Which regime is sponsoring more terrorism at present? Which regime is killing Americans in Iraq? Which regime is allied with Iran and actively trying to destroy U.S. interests in the Middle East? Who is the worse dictator--more repressive; incompetent; and bad for regional stability, the United States, and the West--Egypt's Husni Mubarak or Syria's Bashar al-Asad?

Nobody is asking the U.S. government to bomb Syria or to send troops. It's just a matter of supporting those seeking democracy when it also serves U.S. interests. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems to feel this way.

I have no idea whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports the White House's pro-Syrian policy or not but her attempt to defend it is the most pitiful performance of her 26 months in the job. Was this because her heart isn't in it or just that the contradictions are too obvious to paper over?

Does anyone still believe that the United States is going to woo Syria away from Iran, especially now that it's handing one victory after another to Tehran? Does anyone still believe that Syria is going to make peace with Israel? I mean someone who is a rational being who has some comprehension of international affairs, in other words not Senator John Kerry.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Urges Syria Regime Overthrow Against White House Policy

By Barry Rubin

As I’ve reported, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is horrified by White House policies in the Middle East. Indeed, he has an extra reason for being upset since it is his military forces that have to manage the Libyan mess while simultaneously fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while, on top of that, facing cutbacks and administration social engineering experiments in the armed forces.

Just after visiting Egypt, Gates became the first administration official to call openly for the success of the Syrian opposition in overturning that dictatorship. Precisely, he urged the Syrian army to “empower a revolution” as happened in Egypt. His statement was made as demonstrations grow in parts of Syria. (If you want to know more about Syria, you might consider reading my book, The Truth About Syria.)

Was he reflecting White House orders on this point? Possible but I doubt it. Let’s see if the president says anything about Syria. The White House did strongly condemn the Syrian government’s “brutal repression of demonstrations.” But that’s the kind of language routinely applied by it to lots of countries. Will anything about the U.S. conciliatory effort toward Damascus change? Senator John Kerry, chief appeaser of the Bashar al-Asad dictatorship, will no doubt go on doing so.

Meanwhile, the administration is dumping another ally in Yemen, a country where few should be naïve enough to expect anything approaching democracy.

As for Syria, can anyone tell us why the Syrian army will stand by the regime? Okay, I’ll do it. Syria is run by the Alawite minority who simply aren’t real Muslims but pretend to be Shia when that suits them. The Alawites know that a revolution would almost certainly produce an Islamist takeover and certainly a Sunni Muslim one. And such a regime would line a lot of the Alawites up against a wall and…bang, bang, bang.

That’s a good incentive for shooting down unarmed demonstrators. Kill or be killed.

Hillary's Friends Echo Our Analysis: No Excuse for Not Knowing U.S. Foreign Policy Is At the Iceberg

By Barry Rubin

Every analyst loves the day when policymakers and national leaders start echoing precisely what he's been writing for weeks, months, and years. In this case, unfortunately, it's about bad things happening.

Read this article in the new mainstream, establishment Internet newspaper, The Daily,  interviewing people around Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Insiders love to give  anonymous quotes about what's really going on within government, especially when they see the water rising up to the top of the portholes (the ship is sinking, echoing the Titanic imagery of this article's title); they are horrified by what's happening; and they see a catastrophe they don't want to be associated with (read: blamed for).

Guess what? They're saying that President Barack Obama and most of his team are dangerously incompetent and ideologically deluded--"amateur night" is one memorable phrase used. This is what I've been warning about since the summer of 2008 and pointing out in detail since January 20, 2009, on a daily basis.

I'm not writing this article for the purpose of saying I told you so, Well, okay, yes, I'm doing that also since it's one of the few pleasures of my craft. But what's most important is that there's no excuse now for anyone failing to understand that this is true.

Most of what I have written is based on material available with some understanding of the issues, good judgment, and serious research. Yet the most basic points have been missed by those far higher paid (that doesn't say much), with big budgets (ditto), large staffs (ditto), and the prestige that opens doors (ditto).

Yet it is hardly a secret in the State Department, Defense Department, and the U.S. armed forces that the current policy is a mess; that the Libyan intervention is a shambles; and that the undermining of traditional American allies is a dangerous mistake.

The main reason I'm writing this article is to declare, solemnly and seriously, that as of now, March 2011, nobody can say that they didn't know the U.S. government is set on a disastrous course internationally, throwing away American credibility, subverting U.S. allies, and helping America's foes (and the enemies of democracy and freedom).

This is not a matter of liberal and conservative or of Democrat and Republican. It is a national emergency. One can only hope that those within the government bureaucracy, Congress, the media, opinionmakers, and the general public (also known as: voters) wake up right now this minute and take appropriate action.

The alarm bell is going off in your ears.

No Wonder Hillary Resigned! Mr. Burns Explains U.S. Middle East Policy

Please be subscriber 19,213 (daily reader 36,153). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

For a comprehensive statement of current U.S. Middle East policy you can’t do better than the testimony of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on March 17, 2011.

It’s horrifying. Here's my summary of the key point:

The United States will press for political reform and urge governments to talk to the opposition in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia.
The United States will NOT press for political reform or urge governments to talk to the opposition in the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Sudan, and Syria.

What do the governments in the first paragraph have in common? They have been friendly to the United States.

What do the governments in the second paragraph have in common? They are currently unfriendly to the United States.

In other words, the policy is to pressure your friends (they become weaker); engage your enemies (they become stronger). It is the exact opposite of what U.S. policy should be at this time.

There is a carefully thought out rationale for this policy. It is this:

If relatively moderate countries open their political process (even if it gives Islamists a chance to take power), they will become stronger and less likely to have radical revolutions. Their success will then show that the radical regimes have failed and everyone will see democracy works better. So the radicals will all decide to become moderate or be overthrown by their own people.

The above paragraph is not a joke or satire. This idea is very clearly expressed in the testimony and in other administration statements. This is a historical theme in U.S. foreign policy.

For example, this was precisely the idea regarding the Palestinians. The United States and others would pour money into the West Bank, making the Palestinian Authority a success. Meanwhile, Gaza would sink into stagnation and the people there would want to have a good life, like those on the West Bank.

Of course, the Obama Administration then pressed Israel to drop the sanctions and pumped money (indirectly) into the Gaza Strip.

What else is wrong with this policy? A lot, but briefly:

--It ignores the fact that radical dictators will kill people to stay in power.

--Reform can do more to weaken regimes than the subversion of radical oppositionists.

--Ideology is a powerful factor sometimes transcending material well-being.

--The radicals think they're winning so why should they change? The moderates think they're losing and are more likely to change sides or appease the radicals.

--Radical nationalists or Islamists can use the opening in politics to win power and then transform the state into an aggressive, anti-American country.  To some extent, this is what happened in Iran.

A more realistic U.S. government would have put some tough language into Burns' testimony to cover itself by saying, for example, that it would back the democratic opposition in Iran. But the Obama administration is so ideologically blinded and has been given such a free pass by the mass media that it doesn't realize how obviously far-out it behaves.

In giving this testimony--and this is only my opinion--Burns must have been the most horrified person in the Senate hearing room. After all, not only is he the highest-ranking career person in the State Department, he’s also a veteran of three decades of policymaking on the Middle East.

Much of what he said—expressing U.S. (i.e., White House) policy runs directly counter to everything he’s believed, advocated, and implemented in his career. Let’s go through it in detail, keeping in mind that Burns is just President Barack Obama's messenger here.

His testimony expresses wild enthusiasm for recent Arab political upheavals. There’s no hint about throwing out a 32-year-old alliance with Egypt's regime. Nor is there any whisper of an Islamist threat (no mention of Islamism or of the Muslim Brotherhood), or of an Iranian strategic threat (except for a phrase at the very end), much less from the radicalism of the Syrian regime, Hamas, and Hizballah. There’s no mention of Turkey’s change of sides or of any strategic problems whatsoever.

In a competent administration, if only to cover itself, the testimony would have included real warnings; reservations; strategic considerations; concerns over protecting U.S. interests, stress on the need to maintain U.S. leadership and credibility; and the importance of helping allies protect themselves.

Instead we get this community organizer-style rhetoric:

“The revolutions…are about the brave, proud, and determined people of Arab societies, intent upon better governance and more economic opportunities, intent upon erasing the disconnect between the rulers and the ruled that for so long has been so stifling for so many. And they’re about the universal values that the President spoke about two years ago in Cairo--the right of peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and the right to determine one’s own destiny....”

“It is a moment of great possibility for American policy and help; a moment when the peaceful, homegrown, non-ideological movement surging out of Tahrir Square offers a powerful repudiation of al-Qaida’s false narrative that violence and extremism are the only ways to effect change.”

Here we see another administration theme: America's only enemy is a tiny group called al-Qaida. America's enemy is not revolutionary Islamism, which already controls entire countries and animates movements that mobilize millions of people.

Strange, but neither al-Qaida nor any other radical Islamist force (Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents, or the Muslim Brotherhoods, as well as al-Qaida) seem the least bit worried about these upheavals. Perhaps the Obama Administration's naive ideologues understand these things better than those who actually are Muslims, Arabs, speak the languages, and live in the Middle East.

Here is about all the lip service Burns' testimony gives to the risks of Obama policy:

“But it is also a moment of considerable risk, because there is nothing automatic or foreordained about the success of such transitions. Helping to get them right is as important a challenge for American foreign policy as any we have faced since the end of the Cold War.”

"Helping to get them right!" Aside from being ungrammatical, do you think the Obama Administration is going to be able to help make Egypt into a moderate, stable, wealthy, happy, democratic state?

But there's more. The administration's policy then goes on to discredit the “war on terrorism” and battle with Islamism:

“The long-held conceit of many Arab leaders was that there were really only two political choices--the autocrats you know or the Islamic extremists you fear. That provided a convenient rationale for blocking real political outlets or broadened participation, and it ultimately produced the spontaneous combustion of Tahrir Square.”

But doesn’t that remain to be seen? That "spontaneous" combustion including a lot of anti-American far leftists and Muslim Brotherhood cadre. Those Arab leaders haven't yet been proven wrong. 

Imagine for the moment that you are a Saudi or Jordanian leader reading this. What would you say to the Obama  Administration?:

You think the “Islamic extremists” are a mirage? You think Iran and its power is a conceit? Have you seen how many people were killed in Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan in such internal conflicts? They want to kill us as well. You Americans are idiots! Why should we pay attention to you?

Burns continues with phrases like “remarkable sense of public empowerment” and “a communications revolution that stripped governments of their old monopoly on the flow of information, made people more aware of what others had in other societies that they didn’t, and helped them mobilize without central leadership or conventional political organizations.”

Let’s be frank here: the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt succeeded for one reason ultimately—that the armies supported them. They failed in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and elsewhere because the security forces supported the regime. Let’s not get carried away with “public empowerment” and Facebook as the twenty-first century equivalent of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book!

Burns continues with a lecture on political theory:

“Political systems and leaderships that fail to respond to the legitimate aspirations of their people become more brittle, not more stable. Popular pressures to realize universal values will take different shapes in different societies, but no society is immune from them. Political systems are a little like bicycles--unless they’re peddled forward, they tend to fall over.”

You see, weakening a friendly regime is always good! Change is always good! The people always want to realize "universal values" and merely do so in different ways (terrorism perhaps?).

Nobody could possibly be a radical nationalist, an Islamist, a militant anti-American or antisemite. They all want what Americans want. And unless you give the masses what they want, you fall from power, so you better give them what they want. It's just a matter of negotiating the surrender terms.

There's no way that Burns could really believe this stuff after three decades' work on the Middle East.

He even calls this maxim an “inconvenient truth,” a reference to former Vice-President Al Gore’s global warming film.
Yet despite Burns’ expression of guilt that past U.S. policy failed to recognize this building explosion of reformism and rebellion, the actual history of that policy shows something different. I participated in discussions with U.S. policymakers starting in the 1980s about the new generation, demographic shift, failure of Arab regimes, and other such factors. They weren’t so ignorant at all but understood the dangers involved, too.

Most obviously, there were attempts by President George W. Bush’s administration to push reform. But the current administration can’t say anything nice about its predecessor. And what about President Jimmy Carter’s push on democracy and human rights, including pressure on Iran's shah to do precisely what the administration wants Arab leaders to do now? Oops. Better not mention that precedent or president.

But there’s more kumbaya babble instead of national interests’ diplomacy here. Burns says:

“It is in our long-term interest to support the emergence of more transparent and more responsive governments, who will ultimately make stronger and more stable partners….”

While he admits that “the short-term is likely to be pretty complicated and unsettling” Burns is basically saying that nothing can go wrong.

He refers to “a danger of authoritarian retrenchment….” In other words, the region can go “back” to a Mubarak-style regime. But how about change leading to a brand new type of totalitarianism like what happened in Iran?

Remember, no administration official can say the word "Islamism." So instead Burns refers to how “predatory extremists” might take advantage of the situation, as if these are burglars rather than movements with an attractive ideology and mass base far stronger than the Facebook crowd.

Burns names “economic stagnation” and failure to improve people’s lives as factors which might help these unnamed extremists take over. Burns then makes solving these problems sound easy. “We can help produce private sector jobs desperately needed to keep pace with demography and expectations.” Really? They can’t even do that in America!

It's all very well to say that an “independent media to hold people accountable” is absolutely necessary. But the media is likely to be highly partisan and often controlled by radicals.

Here's my favorite sentence:

"Popularly elected governments sometimes taking sharper issue with American policies than their autocratic predecessors did, and elections sometimes producing uncomfortable results.”

You mean like Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hizballah in Lebanon? Might the  “uncomfortable results” include throwing out U.S. bases, sponsoring terrorism, starting wars, promoting hysterical anti-Americanism, little things like that?

Yet what is most shocking of all in the new American policy is the failure even to mention support for democratic movements against the governments of Iran and Syria. Democratic reform is  presented as managing the collapse of America's Arab friends rather than an American asset to use against those who are both its enemies and the enemies of freedom.

How can the U.S. government make promoting democracy its main priority without  even mentioning the idea of vigorously promoting democracy in Iran or Syria or supporting the oppositions in those countries? Why does the Obama Administration engage its enemies (Syria, Hizballah, and even the Taliban) and enrage its friends?

This is a policy that supports "serious political reform" and dialogue with the opposition only in countries friendly to the United States! Have they thought about what this means: Jordan's government being pushed into a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Authority pressed to set up a coalition with Hamas?

Only at the very end of Burns' testimony, briefly and as an afterthought, comes the stuff that used to be U.S. Middle East policy before the triumph of Facebook democracy:

“Regional security: strengthening ties to the GCC states; in fighting terrorism; in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and setting off a catastrophic regional arms race; in not losing sight of Iraq’s own crucial democratic transition and reintegration into the Arab world.”

Oh yes, almost forgot about that obsolete stuff.Is Burns' statement the best America--the best even Obama--can do as the Middle East burns?

Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to resign after reading Burns’ draft testimony. I sure would have done so if I were her.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama_weighs_talking_to_the_taliban_hezbollah/2011/03/17/AB4e1vm_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions