Presentation of the rapporteurs' conclusions

(report of July 7, 2009)

Mr. François-Poncet, who recalled the mission's various stages before giving a detailed account before the committee, said he and Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga would present their report's main conclusions, making a distinction between problems common to the whole region and problems specific to each country or group of countries.

Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga, who presented the first part of the report, about common problems, recalled that the Middle East countries are as different from one another as European countries and that, by and large, we know little about them. As possible causes she mentioned that we have forgotten their history, remembering only images of violence, even though their peoples have never been as educated and developed, and that we view Islam as a conservative, archaic religion. She said Islam can be no more equated with the Taliban than Catholicism with the Inquisition or Protestantism with the witches of Salem.

It is important to keep in mind that Arab public opinion and governments have not forgotten the colonial period and its after-effects continuing today in Western policy and interventions.

She added that Middle East societies are changing at a brisk pace. The biggest change involves the demographic transition, the stage in a society's history when couples start controlling their fertility. It is under way, although by no means complete, in the Middle East. The women's fertility rate in the Middle East fell from 6.8% in 1975 to 3.7% in 2005. Tunisia has a lower fertility rate than France. This access to modernity causes social disorientation that is becoming tumultuous and convulsive.

Then Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga brought up the status of women. She noted that the spread of the veil had helped to increase the number of girls in school in the working classes, underscoring that wearing the veil was an ambivalent indicator and a paradoxical factor of progress but also the sign of a return to traditionalist religious norms. She said the terms "re-Islamization" and "return of religion" are deceiving because the Middle East has always been deeply Muslim. Referring to Amin Maalouf's book In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong , and to the fact that religious beliefs, because they are more durable than ideologies, offer people an identity to which they can cling, she added that Islam had rebecome the social norm in reaction to Westernization.

Lastly, Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga quickly mentioned the gulf between peoples and governments, those people's tormented relationship with the West, and the expectation everywhere of "more Europe and less America". She concluded by mentioning the abundance of energy resources and the widespread water shortage, a vital threat.

Mr. François-Poncet presented the region's particular problems by first mentioning the three challenges it is facing.

The first challenge, which dates back to 1948, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At first this was an Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab problem but it now has an Israeli-Western component. He expressed surprise that the Israelis have not decided between a single binational State, which can only lead to the dilution, if not disappearance, of its Jewish identity, and the two-State solution, which the West has long promoted in all the parameters since the Taba talks and President Clinton's proposals. The political decision was the only thing missing, he added. Mr. François-Poncet said Israel cannot solve the dilemma because its security is assured and its army is superior to any other in the region. The combination of those two factors partly accounts for its leaders' procrastination, but the main reason lies with Israel's political system and full proportional representation, which leads to many parties and shaky majorities. Politically too weak to make peace and militarily too strong to need it, Israel will only change course under pressure from the United States. From that viewpoint, President Obama, unlike President Bush, who never dared to say it during his two terms, has come out in favor of the two-State solution and demanded a complete halt to settlements. The question is knowing how determined he will be in the long term and whether he will stand up to the pro-Israel lobby. Mr. François-Poncet said the mission had met the main ones in Washington and New York, and that they dispose of sizeable human and financial resources. For the moment President Obama has a wide margin of maneuver but it is unsure if he will keep it a long time.

Then Mr. François-Poncet mentioned the second challenge, Iran's nuclear program, which may result in an arms race throughout the region. He recalled that there are questions on whether the program is military, which Iranian officials firmly deny. According to him, although no formal proof that the program is military exists, a set of clues point in that direction, including the refusal to answer the IAEA's questions, the questionable economic rationality of developing nuclear power for civilian purposes and the development of an advanced ballistic missile program. He added that the facilities necessary for the earliest uranium enrichment cycles, such as the ones at Natanz, cover a large surface area and are hard to hide, but plants involved in the final stages of enrichment are much smaller and could be easily concealed. He concluded that the program, which for the moment has no economic or technical rationality, could have a military purpose. If that were the case, can it be stopped? Mr. François-Poncet said the Iranian regime is unpopular but not threatened and that dissensions are starting to appear in the country's religious elite. The regime is based on sound foundations, such as the pasdarans and basidj. Sanctions are working whereas the talks in the five-plus-one framework have been a failure. Sanctions can be strengthened to make the regime move. When asked whether the current unrest is likely to push Iran towards openness or a harder line, he replied that intransigence is the likely option because the regime needs enemies to survive.

Then Mr. François-Poncet mentioned Yemen, the third and last challenge. Yemen is not yet a failed State but looks as though it is on the brink of becoming one. He recalled the September 2008 attack on the United States embassy, which killed 16 people, and the fact that President Ali Abdullah Saleh's authority extends no further than the capital. The rapporteur mentioned the Houti rebellion in northern Yemen, irredentist temptations in the south and insecurity in the Hadramaout region, where the bin Laden family has its roots. He said the situation was all the more alarming because the country was becoming a new base for Al Qaeda.

Mr. François-Poncet then mentioned the reasons to hope for an improvement in the Middle East situation, first among them the change in US policy. He touched on the rebirth of Iraq due to the improvement in security, the progress of democracy and an active parliament, but also recalled the deterioration of infrastructure, which must be entirely rebuilt, and the need for the Iraqis to establish rules to share the oil wealth.

Mr. François-Poncet mentioned the consolidation of the Saudi regime, which for a time was shaken by homegrown terrorists. He paid tribute to King Abdallah, a cautious but determined reformer who is popular at home and influential in the region. Financial reserves based on oil wealth have been wisely invested and the economic crisis will affect Saudi Arabia less than other countries. He said the governing class is about to change generations; the succession law should make it possible to find a way to decide between the various pretenders.

Mr. François-Poncet said the Gulf States, especially the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, present a new face of Arab modernity, demonstrated by architectural developments and by Qatar's interest in education or Abu Dhabi's in culture. He voiced regret that the regimes' social outlook is still conservative.

Mr. François-Poncet expressed deep satisfaction that Al Qaeda is on the run and has nearly disappeared from Iraq.

Then he addressed the Middle East's recurring issues, including President Hosni Mubarak's succession. The choice has not been made between his son Gamal and Omar Souleiman, which worries observers in the region, especially since the battle for succession is starting in a terrible economic climate.

He said President Sarkozy was right to renew contact with Syria's president Bashar al-Assad Syria and that a wedge could not be driven between that country and its traditional ally Iran unless and until Syria recovered the Golan Heights, which is currently out of the question for Israel's leaders.

With regard to Lebanon, Mr. François-Poncet mentioned the problem of confessionalism and the importance of Shiite Hezbollah, which has set up a State within the State and has close ties with Teheran.

Then Mr. François-Poncet presented the mission's recommendations to the committee.

First, he said no progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible without direct contact with Hamas. The mission met Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, which was anathema to Israel's political leaders. He also said France and the Europeans support the United States president's policy of putting maximum pressure on Israeli leaders, in particular to lift the Gaza blockade and agree to stop settlements.

He considers it an understatement to say that relations between Iran and France are not good and described a luncheon hosted by Iran's ambassador in France during which the ambassador made unacceptable judgments about our country. It is a good idea to support the United States' policy of overture but, in the event of failure, it seems clear to him that the West will have to choose between the bomb and bombing, which does not preclude pursuing efforts and pressuring Iran into accepting all the IAEA inspections in the framework of the NPT.

He said Yemen urgently requires attention and closer ties with Syria are a good thing. The restoration of diplomatic relations with Damascus will let France exert useful though limited pressure.

Mr. de Rohan, who recalled the US president's very strong positions in favor in the two-State solution, wondered about the significance of Vice-President Joe Biden's statement that the United States could not prevent Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear sites. He was surprised the statement was made without consulting the countries of the Atlantic alliance and wondered if that meant the pro-Israeli lobby had become much more active in the United States. Mr. Netanyahou said he understood the US president's message but has done nothing since.

Chairman de Rohan wondered whether, considering the positions of China and Russia, which would probably veto stronger sanctions, Iran was heading towards becoming a nuclear power, which would likely lead to a regional nuclear arms race and the end of the NPT. If that happened, would dissuasion play a role?

Mr. de Rohan said it was conceivable to consider a role for the European Union in the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adding that he is shocked by the Israeli government's firmness in pursuing settlements, maintaining checkpoints and refusing to lift the blockade. He wants the European Union to support President Obama's policy.

In response to Chairman de Rohan, Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga said Israel seeks to shift the West's attention to Iran in order to avoid having to settle the Palestinian problem. The pro-Israel lobby probably influences Joe Biden. The Americans will stand firm only when Israeli policy threatens their vital interests. The Israelis are highly dependent on the United States, which could easily put pressure on them.

With regard to European Union policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga said Sweden, which has just assumed the Union presidency, could probably help define a clear, more consistent policy towards Israel. If that happens, she added, the present European governments would probably follow the recommendations in the text drafted by former European foreign affairs ministers and officials, signed by her fellow senator and co-rapporteur Mr. François-Poncet, supporting contact with all the parties to the conflict, including Hamas.

In response to Chairman de Rohan's question on Iran, Mr. François-Poncet said he thinks it is good policy for President Obama to let his vice-president warn Iran that the United States would not be able to stop Israel from attacking its nuclear sites. If the US and Europe came to terms with a nuclear Iran, the rapporteur said he would be worried about the region's possible nuclearization. The stabilizing role atomic weapons play between India and Pakistan is not necessarily transposable to the Middle East.

Mr. de Rohan said every time Iranian leaders make outrageous outbursts, the Israelis take advantage of it to shift attention away from Palestine and that everybody knows that is what they are trying to do.

Mr. François-Poncet said the Israeli press echoes US pressure and is preparing people for the fact that illegal settlements will have to be evacuated by mulling over solutions (evacuation to legal settlements and construction of high-rises). The United States has sent Senator George Mitchell to the region to remind the Israelis about President Obama's requests and the fact that they must be answered. If the situation remains deadlocked the president will be confronted with his policy's failure. With regard to the Palestinians, the issue is knowing with whom one is negotiating. If Hamas is left out of the talks, it will sabotage them by contesting the decisions taken.

Mr. Boulaud said he ranks among those who think that, if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, the certainty of annihilation should suffice to dissuade it from using them. From Iran's viewpoint, if India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia and the United States have the bomb there is no reason it should not as well. President Obama renounced the anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Does that mean dissuasion is back at the forefront? He said the statement by the head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, that Iran's nuclear program would not produce a weapon until 2015 instead of 2010 annoyed the Israeli prime minister and asked the rapporteurs if that information were accurate.

Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga said the debate over the bomb was ongoing because, although the reasons pushing Iran to acquire one are understandable, the nuclearization of the Middle East is something to be feared.

Mr. Chevènement recalled that Iran said it does not want to acquire nuclear weapons and that, although all the clues suggest the Islamic Republic's leaders are indeed pursuing a military objective, for the moment the program is in compliance with the NPT. He mentioned the possibility that Iran is only seeking to reach the threshold and develop a civilian nuclear industry. Mr. Chevènement added that he is less pessimistic than the rapporteurs about the likelihood that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will form a unity government. On the other hand, he said he is less optimistic about Iraq's democratic progress, recalling that building a nation assumes that its components are homogeneous to a certain degree, which is not the case in that country. Nation-building is a very long process on a historic scale. The pullout of US forces will probably be the hour of truth and it seems too early to celebrate. Iraq has become a big Lebanon.

In response to a question about how much time Iran needs to acquire nuclear weapons, Mr. François-Poncet said that, according to the information the rapporteurs have, if the program is indeed military, the country would be in a position to have its first nuclear device towards late 2010 but would not have a dissuasive military force until 2015. The rapporteur expressed optimism about Iraq, saying that Baghdad is still in a state of siege but the besiegers are gone. He added that the recent surge of deadly attacks does not cast doubt on the overall improvement of security. Mr. François-Poncet said that for the moment the danger is less the divisions between Shiites and Sunnis than the fact that the Kurds are not backing down on their demands for Kirkuk and the attachment of land that, if accepted, would double the size of their autonomous region.

Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga said the inter-Palestinian dialogue is at a standstill. Egyptian officials had set July 7 as the deadline for dialogue, but they have just announced that the date is being postponed to July 25. The obstacles are the government's program, the voting system, the security forces and the integration of Hamas into the PLO. But the Quartet's demand for prior recognition of Israel is actually what has blocked the dialogue. The real deadline is September 25, the convocation date of the elections scheduled in January 2010. European mediation could contribute to breaking the deadlock, but that assumes prior recognition of the Hamas's victory in the 2005 Palestinian elections.

Mr. Reiner asked the rapporteurs about Iran's nuclear program, adding that the regime has been unpopular for at least 15 years. He said the temptation would be great to think that extremists are the only ones who want to develop a weapons program, but the country's entire population is behind it. He asked about the guarantees China, Russia and the West could give the Middle East if Iran did become a nuclear power. Has the West helped or hindered the Middle East in its evolution towards modernity? He said he feels indignant seeing Europe standing idly by when the Israeli army regularly destroys all its investments in Palestine, in particular in Gaza, and is willing to start all over again as though nothing had happened.

In response Mr. François-Poncet said the Iranian regime's unpopularity is nothing new, pointing to the high voter abstention rate in the last elections, but that it has never been so strong. He added that the entire population supports the nuclear program because the Iranian people's glorious past dating back thousands of years has made them deeply nationalistic.

Ms. Cerisier-ben Guiga said that if we let the Middle East countries find their own road to modernity it would be much simpler for them.

Mr. François-Poncet said the main European countries had agreed on a common position, although Germany says little about the issue for obvious historical reasons and the Netherlands has a systematically pro-Israeli attitude. The rapporteur said he agrees with Mr. Reiner that the destruction of buildings in Gaza built by Europe was intolerable and that the absence of protest was even more intolerable.

Recalling a trip to the Middle East, Marcel-Pierre Cléach said all the people he met are convinced Iran will carry out its nuclear ambitions to the very end and that Israel, which expects nothing from international negotiations, would intervene to destroy its uranium production sites.

Mr. François-Poncet responded by saying that Denis Ross, President Obama's special advisor on the issue, has voiced his conviction Israel will attack Iran, but only if its existential interest are in danger.