Going Nuclear in the Middle East - In search of an European Middle East Policy
Robert MALLEY, Director of Middle East and North Africa Program www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/analyst_profiles/malley_rob.pdf at the International Crisis Group (Washington DC, USA) and Former Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs - Thank you very much. It is an honour and pleasure to be invited here to Paris, France.
However, I will surprise you because I am going to begin with some criticism and I will do this in spite of the fact that I am a guest here. It has to do with the French title of my presentation, «Le croissant et la bombe (The Crescent and the Bomb) , » and the title of this symposium, « Going Nuclear in the Middle East». I know people like strong titles that get people interested to come so they try to use things that are provocative. But I wonder about the intellectual reasons for this and even more about the political implications. Nobody would dare talk about a Christian bomb or «the cross and the bomb» or «the Star of David and the bomb». Of course, there is no Muslim bomb. There is not a Jewish or Christian bomb. Even though the world, and especially the Western world, are particularly interested in Islam. Now I am just making the comment not to be provocative but most importantly I think this example of an innocent title that catches your attention is a good illustration to the points I am making today.
Indeed, all of us here are analysts, politicians, decision-makers or witnesses. We all very much depend on the ways of thinking in our own countries. When we are considering the Middle East as we are doing today and tomorrow, we can prefer either a particular subject matter or a particular vantage point for analyzing or a particular way of interpreting things. These are choices and these choices have consequences.
This is a topic I want to talk about during my overview right now : to take a critical view of the ways in which France, the United States, and the West more generally, look at the Middle East and understand it.
The title of our talk, as I said, is just an example of some of these points. I think it is true today that this example is symptomatic. It is true of my country and I think it is also true of your country; we in the West have our eyes riveted on Iran as previously some had their eyes riveted on Iraq. There has been a sort of shift from one obsession to another. We have to realise that there is no coincidence here. It is precisely because of the tragic war in Iraq that we saw a strengthening of Iran's position in the region so that today we are worried about Iran.
The Iraqi obsession therefore has led to the «Irani» obsession. Having one obsession is very risky; we fully understand what the consequences might be. You may then neglect other crises, for instance the Israeli-Arab crisis, or might imagine that all players in the region view the danger in the same way as we do. Another pitfall is that you may take disproportionate measures in terms of the real size of the threat.
Now of course we cannot ignore Iran and we must not underestimate the risks of a nuclear crisis. Senator François-Poncet has just explained this to us very well. We must look at this, but not too much, and we must do it differently. I will come back to this in a moment.
Now, though, I would like to make some more general points. I wanted to say the following: we must not just work with preconceived notions. On the contrary, we have to push them aside. We have to break taboos and, as the report by the Committee has done, we have to really look at reality clearly and ask the difficult questions. We have to confront our certainties and call into question our dogmas, considering the current situation and the overall process underway.
In President Obama's State of the Union address, he describes the health of the union - whether it is in a good or bad state. We can say that the Middle East is in a bad state. We could describe it as follows, which may be an exaggeration:
- Almost all of the regimes have a serious lack of legitimacy.
- Whether talking about the monarch system or even a republican system, succession is more and more like a hereditary type of succession.
- Traditional allies of Western policy in the region are struggling, especially Egypt and Jordan.
- We see sectarian ruptures taking place in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, worsening and spreading throughout the region.
- In Yemen, the State is falling apart, and in Iraq it is difficult to get the State back on its feet.
- In fighting terrorism, the terrorist ideology seems to be growing rather than weakening.
- Militant Islamism is taking root.
- We are seeing more and more belief in violence and military action, both in Israel and among Palestinians, as well as among other Arab countries.
- We are seeing some disaffection with the West.
- There is a loss of influence and deterrent capacity of the United States, especially after the Iraq War and also due to the effects of the Afghanistan War.
- We are seeing the collapse and the disrepute of the Israeli-Arab peace process.
- We are seeing a geographical, political and social scattering of the national Palestinian movement.
- We see populations and public opinions in Israel moving to the right. They no longer believe in peace.
- There is increased risk of nuclear proliferation and conflicts due to the Iranian nuclear programme.
- There are increased threats of deadly, costly and inefficient wars between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It is very unfortunate but my list is not an exhaustive one.
We must therefore re-examine some of the pillars of Western policy, which clearly is not reaching the objectives. What do we mean by re-examination ? There are a few ideas here today.
The first example of this is the most fundamental one, having to do with the way we in Europe and the US often view the region. We look at the major fault lines, the cleavages and the definitions of who are enemies and allies are. This type of vision, especially in the US but I also think it is often the case in Europe, works on the basis of the axis metaphor.
On one side, you have the pro-Iranian axis including of course Iran, Syria and their alleged allies or auxiliary, or so called auxiliary Hamas and Hezbollah.
Then on the other side, you have an axis for a «moderate camp» that is pro-Western with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. According to this diagnosis, it also includes the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah.
This view of things does contain some truth but due to the fact that it is a static, frozen caricature and out of sync with local perception, we can say it is not really true.
This is a binary view of the region divided between moderates and militants, pragmatics and extremists. It gives rise to many political actions and certainties, i.e. that you have to isolate Hamas and not enter into dialogue. A dialogue would mean lending it legitimacy, betraying Fatah and would be fatal to the peace process. Some people have another idea that Gaza has become the Iranian vanguard and that if the population of this territory managed to live normally, it would dangerously strengthen the Islamic movement that controls it, along with their Iranian ally.
A French high-ranking diplomat who has agreed to speak here, Yves Aubin de la Messuzière, and I were recently criticized for not taking part in a boycott and meeting with Hamas. It is an honour that the Committee has also done the same thing and has begun critical, honest dialogue with no compromise and no complacency with Hamas leaders.
I would say that anyone who criticizes and criticized us has learned nothing of the years of ostracism that were counterproductive with the PLO. You cannot ignore a movement that is rooted in public opinion. By ignoring it, you do not make it disappear.
Another result of this black and white view of the region is the illusory hope that Syria will suddenly change camp or change axis as though today it was fully a member of one side of the axis and, as if in the current circumstances, it would see an advantage in shifting allegiances.
Another possible negative consequence is the idea of a single unified front. It is not true but people hope for this and think that Arab Sunni countries would work with Israel to move together, as if Arab countries do not have to take into account their own public, who see the reality in an entirely different light.
Now there are other risks if you try to define the world in black and white fashion. This binary view tends to backfire; producing unintended effects and strengthening those that the West is trying to weaken. Today, when a young Arab in North Africa or elsewhere in the Middle East is given the choice between dynamic activism and soft non-movement, what is he going to opt for? If you give the choice in Damascus, as it was and still is done today, between discussions with Iran or denial of their alliance and ideas, what is it going to opt for? If you think that Hamas has a choice, they gave up what they believe in and accepted the conditions of the Quartet, that is accepted things done by the adversaries. As a result, they participated in and won the 2006 elections. Alternatively, they can be condemned to isolation. Saying that is guaranteeing that you will get them to make the wrong choice.
In all of these cases, having an inflexible attitude means it is even less likely that there will be change towards greater realism or greater pragmatism with either Arab citizens, Syria, Hamas or Hezbollah - change that they might accept under better conditions.
There are divisions - Sunni/Shia, Persian/Arab. By making use of them, we play the game of extremists from both sides who are manipulating sectarian and ethnic polarisations. We know that the extremists on both sides would win out if we let this happen.
The most striking and tragic example comes from Iraq. The Bush administration had prejudices and ignorance and they projected their own ethno-sectarian view of that country, seeing it as being clearly divided in three: Sunni, Shia and Kurd. They treated it that way and actually awakened and exploited this. They politicized the situation and institutionalized the ethnic and religious rivalries that Iraq is still suffering from today.
They said that all the Sunnis were Baathists and were, therefore, enemies. That is one of the original sins of the US in its Iraqi endeavours. We see this again with the purges on the electoral lists.
After awakening these sectarian demons in Iraq, we congratulate ourselves for what Iraqi politicians are now saying: that they have a nationalist discourse. It is a welcome discourse but it is a bad substitution for the emergence of real national institutions, an actual political and social contract between the various Iraqi groups, the rule of law, and an actual national reconciliation. Now I would say in Iraq there is still too much sectarianism and ethnic intolerance. People today who claim that they are not acting in a sectarian manner are often intolerant in terms of ethnicity. We see this in many opportunistic and perilous speeches against the Kurds.
Iraq is doing better. We have heard this and it is true, but still it is not doing that well. It must rid itself of three things from the past: Saddam Hussein's regime, the US occupation, and its accompanying sectarian political model. This last legacy is not necessarily the least of the problems.
A second danger of seeing the region in this black and white fashion that we are trying to contend with is that Europe and the United States, based on this attitude, do not see some of the changes afoot that are not in line with their imposed model. This means they are spectators to the real transformations that are taking place. I just want to give you a few examples. Let us take a look at what has happened in recent months.
Saudi Arabia has got back together with Syria after a long period of being estranged. Together the two countries have agreed to oppose any Iranian interference in Yemen and, more quietly, have found common ground in Iraq.
Contact has also been re-established between Riyadh and Hamas after the failure of the Mecca Agreements. The leader of Hamas has also visited Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where there was a reaffirmation of the Arab nature of his Islamic movement.
In Lebanon, the line between the long-standing «March 14» and «March 8» camps is starting to become blurred.
Then, in Iraq, there are the Syrian/Israeli allies who, in addition to the Yemeni disagreements, are now vying for influence by interposed parties. Strangely, this is a little bit like what happened in Lebanon a few years ago with the difference being that in Lebanon, they shared a number of common interests that they do not seem to share in Iraq.
Then Turkey is stepping up its presence in the region. It is mediating left, right and centre with Israel and Syria, while deepening political and economic links with Damascus. It is contacting all stakeholders, whether it is the Palestine Authority, Israel or Hamas, and putting extra effort into Iraq.
One could almost conclude that the real rivalry in the region is not between those that are pro-Iranian and those that are pro-Western, but more between a vision forged by Iran and another forged by Turkey.
The first is about resisting Western influence and Israel, which is the Iranian view. It is a response to a kind of Third World desire for dignity and self-determination among the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is mainly activist driven.
At the other end, you have the Turkish vision. It is more about diplomacy, refusing, boycotting or non-dialogue. It favours economic integration and regional interdependence.
Neither vision is Arab, but both are pertinent, are well known in the region, are popular among the citizens of the region, and benefit from legitimate support.
Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about the American vision. For the moment it is absent even despite Obama and his administration. It depends too much on a conception according to which these developments (i.e. the bridge-building between Syria and Saudi Arabia, dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Hamas, the multi-party diplomacy in Turkey, the repositioning in Lebanon, and tension between Iran and Syria) do not have any sense, readability and interest.
All of this is ignored or overlooked by Washington because they are trying to isolate Hamas and Hezbollah completely. They are worried about inter-Palestinian reconciliation and they are demanding of Damascus a clear choice. All these nuances and subtleties and all the not fundamental but minor shifts are «off the radar» for Washington. The opportunities that these represent for fostering those modest but important shifts - either by Hamas, Damascus or other actors - are all missed and spoilt.
Now, after a quick look at this first problem of a binary approach to the world, let us move onto another issue: Iran and how one should view Iran. I was saying just now that it is important to think about this, but not too much and, above all, differently.
Obviously, one should think about the issue. Whatever you might think of the Iranian nuclear programme and whether it is legitimate or not, today nobody can underestimate the risks of proliferation or even pre-emptive attacks. Some believe and some fear that Israel might carry out attacks on uranium plants.
We should worry about it too much because I was talking about the dangers of fixations and obsessions. There are downsides to all of those. That is what drove the vain idea of an Arab-Israeli front against the Persians, and the dangerous temptation of inciting tensions between Shiites and Sunnis or Arabs and Persians. Other excesses are due to the obsession on Iran. Iran is suspected of having a hand in everything - Gaza and Yemen. Its nuclear programme would be a threat to the whole world and even war would be justified to hold down this growing power.
You have to think of it differently, and that is what my colleague Frederic Tellier and I have worked towards on Iran in the International Crisis Group . I do not really have a conclusion to give you as to whether Iran will go ahead and construct a bomb or not, but it has done a lot to raise suspicions. However, maybe after giving itself the potential of a nuclear weapon, aware of the dangers that represents to society, it has decided not to go through with it. It is capable of developing a nuclear weapon, but it is aware of the dangers its acquisition would bring. Now I do not know exactly what the consequences are of the tumultuous events since the controversial elections last June in that country, or whether the regime is willing or able to talk to Washington.
I know even less where this will lead, though I think one can be fairly certain that this is an unprecedented breakdown in the history of the Islamic Republic. The legitimacy of the regime and its authority will be affected for a long time.
As to whether the regime will fall, as quite a number of people in my country are saying, I would say that having spent 30 years cut-off from and ignoring Iran, you cannot suddenly overnight become an expert. You certainly cannot base your policy on the abstract possibility of a different regime in Iran when you look at the pressing needs of the present and when there are, in the US at least, fundamental interests at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular.
However, I am absolutely sure that the policy to date has been totally ineffective. Iran has been called upon to make an impossible sacrifice, giving up its domestic uranium enrichment programme. To do so, an instrument has been used that illustrates our ability to understand the drivers of this regime, which are more punitive than persuasive economic sanctions and given the type of regime will never bring the hopeful concessions. Then there is a waiving of the threat of military attack, which would be as costly for the countries that would lead the attack as for those who would be the target. All of this enables the Iranians to believe and to convince others that the ultimate aim of the West is to bring down and destroy their regime.
It is an elusive objective with ineffective tools and unwise blackmail, and the result is expensive and very disappointing.
We need to think about this differently to do this means coming up with a solution to the problem of the Iranian nuclear programme, other than simply stopping their enrichment programme. It would be a solution that boosts Western confidence about the Iranian objective and reinforces the Iranian right to enrichment. It would also mean that we have to look at to what extent Tehran's legitimate regional security issue can be addressed. For the United States, it would mean that a dialogue must be entered into, not only about the nuclear question but also on matters of mutual interest, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, drug trafficking, and the ultimate taboo of entering into a discussion - with an open mind - of what the consequences of a nuclear Iran would be.
Now I am not at all sure that any solution can be found in the current state of affairs. We have to be very prudent when looking at what has happened with the enrichment programme, but persisting in an approach that leads only to a dead end and that will not prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme, seems to me neither logical nor defensible.
The third and last example that I will end with is the peace process that has been a thorn in our side for so long and with nothing looking like peace in sight. How many taboos have to be broken and preconceived ideas turned down, or at least revised?
Firstly, the idea that bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine can lead to a final peace is surely an illusion. The Americans, together with many European countries, have set as an objective the resumption of such talks as if it was the lack of negotiation that has been blighting the process for the past 16 years. It is rather the lack of creativity, courage and imaginations. There has been no lack of negotiations, by any means.
So let us clearly look at reality. The National Palestinian Movement is split between Fatah and Hamas, Gaza and the West Bank. The PLO lacks legitimacy. The Diaspora feels left out more than ever. Palestinians from Jerusalem have been cut off from their brothers and all of this means that there is a serious crisis of Palestinian political representation. Israel has played its part in that, but it is not solely responsible either. We need to seriously and sincerely look at the ability of current political leaders to sign an agreement and have it supported by their people and keep it long-standing in force.
On the Israeli side, it is a different process but conclusions are similar. Whether it is Labour or Likud, left or right, no government has been able to carry out comprehensive negotiations with the Palestinians. None of them managed to survive after making a concession, even a minor one, apart from one exception. No government has done away with any of the settlements in occupied territories, but Ariel Sharon's government was the exception and they did not do it as part of negotiations but as a unilateral decision.
For most Israeli politicians, it is all about cost-benefit calculations. For those that govern in Jerusalem, whether it is today or in the past, on one side you have the cost of a difficult confrontation with tens of thousands of settlers, and the deep social and political strife it would produce by removing those settlements and by withdrawing from the occupied territories. On the other side, you have the uncertain benefits of an agreement. Obviously, the choice is clear.
Even worse than that, 16 years after the Oslo Accords were signed, virtually no Israeli or Palestinian seriously believes in the process started by those agreements and nobody takes any interest whatsoever. It is not that they have lost the hope that an agreement could be signed, it is that they doubt that even if it was signed, the agreement would meet their most pressing needs or desires.
Palestinians feel that the creation of a state offered by Israel will not give them the dignity, honour, sovereignty or recognition of the historic injustice against the refugees. More than anything else, that is what they want, the state being just an expression of that.
Most Israelis feel that a peace agreement signed with the current Palestinian entity would not give them meaningful security and safety. That is to say, the sincere acceptance by Palestinians, in particular, and Arabs, in general, not simply of the existence of the Jewish state, but of its legitimacy. The other security, that is to say the practical and military security that weapons can provide, is something they already have, at least to the extent that they believe possible. They prefer to rely only on themselves to maintain it. Moral and psychological security, this deeper form of safety, is what they aspire to and is what they fear more and more will not be achieved through an agreement.
Any bilateral agreement would be at the cost of the credibility of Palestinian president, who promised not to start negotiations again without any complete stopping of the settlements. There is also no need to start bilateral negotiations again if the following fundamental issue is not addressed: why should one believe that any such negotiations would reach a successful conclusion and settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given that they have always faltered in the past when the circumstances were better?
There is no point resuming a failed process in the past. It worked neither under Clinton nor Bush, nor under Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, nor under Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert. So we need a new start, even if it takes some time to get there.
Henry Siegman, my colleague from whom you will hear later and whom I think is unrivalled in his temerity, intellectual honesty and creativity, has come up with an alternative and he will give you the details of that. Very briefly, I think we can say it is about imposing peace. Its merit is that it is a break with the past and it does not solely rely on parties that have shown 100 times that they are unable to solve the problem alone. I find it intriguing, but it is also a problem.
I have mentioned this on many occasions because I doubt that the US administration would be able to go so far in imposing a solution and weather the inevitable crisis with Israel.
I do not know if, in this way, one can put an end to this historic conflict. Reducing it or alleviating some of its most harmful aspects, I say yes, but actually ending it forever, I have doubts. It is certainly an avenue to explore.
But I think what is vital is to find a way of broadening the scope so that whatever the process is, it does not remain solely in the control of a small Israeli or Palestinian group. For the first time, the process has to be credible. How can you achieve a lasting peace if one excludes the most dynamic and mobilised forces? Those forces could either stand in the way or make it legitimate. That is to say, the islamist refugee Diaspora on the Palestinian side, and the Israeli settlers and religion on the other side.
It is about the method. Who will talk and speak on behalf of the Israelis and Palestinians? It is also about content. Here, too, we need new ideas to make sure that the final agreements, even if they were like the Taba or Geneva or Clinton ideas, can be enhanced and include factors that emanate from those who have been left out of the peace process.
I will just end with a word on my home country and one word on my host country.
I said of Barack Obama that his was a revolutionary candidacy, but that his presidency would not be revolutionary. This was not a criticism but an observation. I think we can see this as far as the Middle East is concerned. Obama is the beacon for change, but he is also the heir to the past. In a sense, he is a kind of hostage, in the practical and concrete meaning of the word. He received a situation that he is finding very hard to come to terms with. This is a war in Iraq that he did not want and that he cannot suddenly end. He cannot stop the negative effects on US credibility, regional polarization, and sectarianism that are exported. There is also the inheritance of a bankrupt peace process that even under ideal circumstances would be hard to repair.
There is mental and psychological - not just practical - inheritance in that habits have become deeply rooted. There is the idea that you could make the West Bank exemplary and forget Gaza, or the idea that you could reinforce the moderates and isolate the so-called extremists. There is the idea that you all just have to threaten sanctions against Iran and keep the military option in order to be taken seriously. There is the idea that you just have to resume the process and correct the mistakes of the past. Bush's legacy, in this case, was doubly bad. What he did badly meant that his successors thought they could do it right by doing it better. Because of his intellectual background, Obama needed to delve into subtleties and nuances, but he has had to stand in the full glare of fake certainties. As I said at the time, it is inevitable and this is what has happened. Now when his Middle Eastern policy is hitting a wall as could be expected, the real challenge and real question begins: What will Obama's policy be?
The worst flaw of President Bush, and there were many, was his obstinate nature and his refusal to test his beliefs against reality. Obama seems to be much more intellectually flexible. Now that he and his team have failed in most of his attempts, it is up to him to show that, although weakened by the political defeats and under the threat of upcoming elections, he can adjust, take risks and succeed.
As for France, and you know better than I do, I would venture a bit to say that it lies between the two extremes: the binary view of the world and the more subtle, fluid view. It has a very hard line against Iran but has an innovative policy, which is more or less successful, when it comes to dialogue with Syria. It refuses to engage in talks with Hamas but has a willingness to consider an exchange of prisoners which would free a French citizen and which, by definition, would mean contacts with the Islamic movement. All of that is spiced-up with a clear desire to be active, and offset by a realisation of actual limits. It is viewed as dizzying from the outside, but I cannot help believing that given the Western European and American vacuum in the region, about which I am sorry, France actually can change things if it wants to. It can further broaden the scope of discussion if it wants to, and be both a bridgehead and a bridge if it wants to be. It could do more. It could do things differently. Within the limits of its resources, one might dream that it could actually make a difference. Thank you.
Jean FRANCOIS-PONCET, senator and co-author of the Foreign Relations and Defence Committee's report on the situation in the Middle East - Many thanks to Mr Malley. We see he is a true analyst for the real situation in the Middle East. I do not know from what he said if we can draw conclusions as to what we need to be doing but certainly, we can look into these various points and look at what we should be doing during our debate.