Pundits, citizens, and policymakers alike are all familiar with the “Asia pivot” – the administration’s headline-friendly byword for reallocating resources and efforts that came about a few years ago. Now, in the midst of Egyptian despondency and Syrian dystopia, Obama appears geared toward dialing down, yet again, in the Middle East.

To varying degrees depending on the presidency, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict floated in and out of these objectives. This was especially true with George W. Bush, who pursued both 1 and 3 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan, and in his second term the peace process.

So it was when Obama ascended to the presidency in 2008, and many assumed these core interests would remain. Certainly, Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo resonated with the democratization interest, and his increased drone campaign coincided with the war on terror.

Yet as events unfolded in the Middle East, Obama let these goals get away from him.

Indeed, as the Arab Spring unfolded, American interests increasingly became subverted by outside interests.

Nothing highlighted that more than the contrast in how the US approached Libya and Syria.

With Gaddafi, international pressure and opinion was overwhelmingly in support of a US-led no-fly zone, essentially handicapping the regime and boosting the rebels. In Syria, with global opinion less cohesive, the US was simply upended by Russia.

Intervening on behalf of the rebels in Syria coincided directly with the spread of democracy and the fight on terror that so dominated the political calculus for Bush; the contrast with Obama’s approach was sharp.

Even Israel’s hawkish stance on Iran, long a talking point in DC circles, has become a prominent fixture in Obama’s recent policy evaluation.

According to the same New York Times article quoted above, Rice has made it clear that the core interests for the remaining years of Obama’s tenure will be supporting the ongoing peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, limiting the Syrian violence, and resolving the Iranian issue. According to the article: “everything else will take a back seat.”

The focus, then, will be on the diplomatic front, with support mobilizing for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and for resolutions with Syria and Iran. But is this the right move for the US? In downgrading the US’s role in the region, does it leave a gap for another foreign entity to fill? Is it a high-risk, low-reward scenario? Or is it the right move for a nation with little to no domestic interest in intervening in the Middle East? Depending on who you ask, it’s a little bit of both. As Marc Lynch wrote, the US doesn’t really have to worry about any other foreign power getting involved in the Middle East. And for all of Russia’s diplomatic rhetoric, the Middle East is essentially the Miley Cyrus of the geopolitical arena: you don’t want anything to do with it but you can’t stop watching.

And so long as intervening in the Middle East is polling lower than Congress in the US, it is still going to be the safe bet, politically, to avoid any further involvement in the troubled region.

But on the strategic front, you don’t have to go far to find those who disagree with Obama’s shift.

Most notably, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who – when not visiting Egypt or sneaking into Syria – are adamant critics of Obama’s shift toward Asia.

In an op-ed written in The Washington Post, they criticize Obama for abandoning US interests in the region, including, among other things, a lack of support for the Free Syrian Army.

Clearly, it’s an issue that transcends politics in the US. For Obama, it’s almost a lose-lose scenario. Allocate resources and redouble efforts in the Middle East and suffer domestic reprisals, abandon the region and potentially risk adverse side effects that would be detrimental to any combination of US interests.

Perhaps if given a breakthrough on one of the main issues – Israel/ Palestine, Syria, Iran – Obama and Rice will feel comfortable refocusing their efforts on issues such as Egypt, or Libya, or the growing refugee crisis in Jordan. Or perhaps not.

As the past couple years have shown us, Obama has little tolerance for the Middle East, and why add to the grey hairs in the last years of his tenure?

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Obama dials down in the Middle East – but is it the right move? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Ajmal begins with an introduction to himself and the party. In addition to working as an economic advisor for the vice-presidency of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Ajmal twice ran for the parliamentary elections, suffering a narrow defeat each time. He is a political economist and frequently appears on national and international news outlets. He has written three books (A Journey to the Edge of Liberalism, Globalization or Global Capitalism and Capitalism of our Era). In addition to his current duties, he is leading a group of Afghans determined to make an ‘Afghan Spring’ happen in order to bring about democratic changes and to rid Afghanistan of corruption and nepotism.

The Afghan Liberal Party was established in 1998 by a small number of youth and academics who subscribed to a liberal interpretation of contemporary governance. It began its activities in 2001, and in 2004 cemented its progress by registering with the Ministry of Justice of the Islamic republic of Afghanistan.

The Afghan Liberal Party operates on the basis of several political principles, namely the support of individual rights and justice, free markets and equal access to social services for citizens, the rule of law, and social and religious pluralism.

—

Shifting gears in the interview to contemporary events, Ajmal begins to describe the current situation in Afghanistan. The current situation, however, is as multi-layered and complex as ever, and seems to confuse not only Israelis but also Afghans themselves. Acknowledging the confusion, Ajmal tries to clear out some of the mess and tells about his perspectives:

“The situation in Afghanistan is pretty critical: it is full of challenges, war-lords are in place, corruption, and lawlessness have tremendously strained the Afghan people. Most importantly, the insurgency has become formidable. Most of the bordering areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan and between Afghanistan and Iran are not within the control of the Afghan government.”

These are the main issues that currently set the agenda for Afghans:

“The upcoming Presidential elections have become a grave concern for Afghans since they believe that the president wants to make a secret deal with the opposition that will help him to establish a new ‘chief executive post’ and in the future he would maintain his control in the country. This is similar to the political maneuver Putin and Medvedev have done in Russia and many blame the president that he tries to apply the same scenario in Afghanistan”

“Security is another main issue. Many believe that as soon as NATO withdraws from the country the vulnerable security forces of Afghanistan will not be able to defend the country and Afghanistan once again will become a safe haven for terrorist cells. While still many others fear that in addition to increased terrorist activities in the country, regional countries may come over to use Afghanistan as political stadium for their strategic goals in the country.”

“The difference between Kabul and Washington over the US’ long-term strategic presence in the country is an additional troubling issue in Afghans daily life. There are signs that both Iran and Pakistan are anxious with a long-term US presence in Afghanistan, as this is viewed as a threat to their national security. Therefore, we have seen Iran and Pakistan engage in lobbying to get the president halt any long-term strategic relationship between Kabul and Washington.”

“Drug trafficking is an added horrible issue which ruins the legal economy of the country and helps the terrorists get funds to wage extra-wars in the country”

Finally, Ajmal discusses Afghan views of Israel and a possible future cooperation between the states.

“Israel is not an enemy of the state. As in many countries, there are folks on both sides of the conversation. In general, Afghans are divided in this regard with the Islamic fundamentalist, political pundits and leaders backed by Iran and Pakistan comprising a side who yearn for the annihilation of Israel; but the youth are open minded and moderate. There are Afghans who regard Israel as a potential ally for establishing a counter-weight against those countries that support terrorism and that seek to wreck Afghanistan. To be honest, the conflict between Israel and Palestine should mostly be the concern for Israelis and Palestinians. It has no direct geopolitical, geo-strategic or geo-economic impact on Afghanistan; but still, Afghanistan supports a peaceful solution and co-existence of Muslims, Jews, Christians and others.”

“I can tell you that Afghanistan is not opposed to business or trade with Israel. The people at the very top understand the power of money and the economic value of not shutting anyone out in the global environment. I recommend to both sides not to make huge media announcements. Do it slow and grow.”

And what does Afghanistan offer for Israelis?

“Afghanistan is making the most progress of all the ‘Stans’. Deep cultural environmental learning through business development is likely the best. Economic development gives the best opportunity for all countries to best experience Afghanistan. Banking, mining, and alternative livelihoods hold the best opportunity for Israel to cooperate with Afghanistan.”

To conclude, Ajaml sends a message to Israelis:

Use the experiences in your own area to help Afghans affect the Peace Process. For example, share what went right or wrong. There is no reason to keep this a secret and your experiences could mean a lot for us at the political and public levels.

הפוסט An Interview with Ajmal Sohail, Leader of the Afghan Liberal Party הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.