As published for Shadow Government on foreignpolicy.com on January 20th, 2010:
By John Hannah
What should be the Obama administration’s focus in the Middle East for Year Two? For me, it’s a no-brainer: consolidating success in Iraq and supporting democratic change in Iran.
Iraq is at an important crossroads. Things could go very well in 2010 or they could begin to unravel. There’s no doubt that President Obama’s artificially imposed August timeline for removing all U.S. combat troops has introduced an unnecessary element of added uncertainty to the mix, and will serve as an accelerant of instability.
That said, the process remains manageable if balanced by steady progress in the political, economic, diplomatic, and security spheres, mainly: 1) Another free and fair parliamentary election that, without excessive delay, produces a reasonably competent national government; 2) The start of a serious campaign to deliver basic services, attract foreign investment, and generate jobs and economic growth for the Iraqi people; 3) Iraq’s further integration into its own neighborhood; and 4) The continued strengthening of the Iraqi security services. All these tasks remain seriously challenging, but eminently achievable — especially if buttressed by deep, consistent American engagement, led by Obama himself, that reflects an appreciation for Iraq’s critical importance to the Persian Gulf region and the enormous long-term benefits that would accrue from an effective U.S.-Iraqi strategic partnership.
Read the full post here
As published for Shadow Government on foreignpolicy.com on January 13th, 2010:
By John Hannah
On Jan. 12, several agents from the Islamic Republic’s intelligence ministry raided the home of Mohammed Taqi Khalaji. They took Khalaji into custody and confiscated his computer, satellite receiver, and hundreds of notes, books and personal letters. The agents also seized the passports of Khalaji and members of his family, banning them all from leaving the country. Khalaji’s family does not currently know where he is being detained and Iranian authorities are refusing to provide any information.
Khalaji is a prominent cleric in Qom, the center of Iranian Shiism. Since June 12, he has been a courageious critic of the Iranian regime’s crackdown on peaceful protests and a supporter of the so-called Green Movement. Khalaji was known to be close to Iran’s most prominent dissident cleric, the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, and is an ally of Ayatollah Sanei — another well-known reformist cleric who has come under whithering attack from the regime following the massive Ashura demonstrations of Dec. 28. Clearly, Khalaji’s arrrest is of a piece with the Islamic Republic’s escalating — though so far miserably unsuccessful – efforts to crush all signs of peaceful opposition. Khalaji now joins hundreds, if not thousands, of other brave Iranians dragged from their homes and illegally detained for exercising their most fundamental rights of citizenship.
Read the full post here
As published for The Corner on nationalreview.com on December 21, 2009:
A few thoughts regarding Friday’s seizure of an Iraqi oilfield by Iranian forces:
1) The incident underscores the continuing complexity of Iraqi-Iranian relations. Critics of the Bush administration often assert that, in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, America handed the country to Iran on a silver platter, making it a virtual satrapy of the Islamic Republic. Wrong. The fact is that the historical animosities, conflicts, and suspicions that have long colored relations between Arab Iraq and Persian Iran are deep and enduring. No doubt, the removal of Saddam’s Republic of Fear and the ascent of an Iraqi government dominated by Iran’s Shiite co-religionists helped ease some of these longstanding tensions. But they have not been eliminated. The oilfield dispute is only the latest of many controversies currently plaguing the Iraq-Iran relationship. In recent months, Iraq has challenged — sometimes privately, but increasingly publicly — the Islamic Republic’s claims to Iraqi territory, its excessive diversion of joint water resources, and its declared intention to build new nuclear facilities near the Iraqi border. As the security situation in Iraq has stabilized and the Iraqi government has gained greater confidence, it has shown itself increasingly willing to stand up for Iraq’s sovereignty and push back against Iranian encroachments.
Read the full post here
As published for Shadow Government on foreignpolicy.com on December 11, 2009:
By John Hannah
Last week, I wrote that perhaps the best part of President Obama’s West Point speech was his robust recitation — for the first time in his presidency — of America’s unparalleled contributions to global peace and security. In part it was so welcome because it was so unexpected. In most of his major addresses throughout his first 10 months in office, the president had fallen into the unfortunate habit of appearing before foreign audiences and dwelling excessively on his own country’s faults and transgressions — a style that, while sure to win him plaudits from the likes of those deciding the Nobel Peace Prize, was unlikely to prove particularly productive in advancing concrete American interests around the world. In my comments after the West Point address, I’d urged the president to take his newfound appreciation for American exceptionalism and make it a centerpiece of his riff at Oslo.
Well, that’s just what he did. I thought the president’s sober defense of the essential role of force and military power — and specifically American military power — in maintaining global order against the predations of those who would destroy it was extremely important.
Read the full article here
As published for Shadow Government on foreignpolicy.com on November 13, 2009:
By John Hannah
Are the Saudis prepared to constrain oil prices to weaken Iran? It’s an intriguing possibility that, if implemented, could have major implications for U.S.-led efforts to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
In no small part because of a weakening dollar, oil prices have risen for most of the past year from a low of close to $30 per barrel to around $82 per barrel last week. But since then, prices have been slowly sliding back, dipping below $77 yesterday. Most media attributed Thursday’s decline to a report that U.S. oil inventories had increased higher than expected, and that U.S. consumers continued to reduce energy use in a still sluggish economy. No doubt true. But other factors have been at play as well.
Specifically, the near-record stockpiles of oil that currently exist not only in the United States, but across the developed world, have been made possible by the fact that OPEC has been increasing output at the fastest pace in two years. Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that the cartel has boosted production more than a million barrels a day since March — despite the worst global recession since World War II. OPEC’s largest producer, the Saudis, have helped lead the way, increasing exports four out of the past six months. Saudi output has increased almost 300,000 barrels per day since earlier this year. Overall OPEC production reached its highest level in 10 months in October.
The Saudis have said that $75 per barrel is an appropriate target price. This week, a Saudi government advisor told the press that, at over $80 per barrel, prices had reached “the high end of our range” and any further rise could prompt the Kingdom to further tap its unused capacity — which currently stands at approximately 4 million barrels a day.
Read the full article here
As published for The Corner on nationalreview.com on October 29, 2009:
The New York Times reports this afternoon that Iran has rejected the essence of a Western proposal under which it would have shipped some 75 percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad for further processing into fuel for a research reactor.
Instead, Iran is demanding that it first be supplied with reactor fuel fabricated from foreign uranium. Only then will it consider sending any of its own LEU abroad. In the intervening months, of course, Iranian centrifuges would continue to spin, additional LEU would be produced, and Iran’s defenses of its nuclear sites would continue to be hardened against possible military attack. The Times quotes a European official as saying, “The key issue is that Iran does not agree to export its lightly enricheduranium
. That’s not a minor detail. That’s the whole point of the deal.”
Indeed. The Obama administration’s entire rationale for the LEU proposal was that it would result, in short order, in the removal of enough LEU from Iran to ensure that it no longer had sufficient fissile material in country to rapidly produce a bomb through further enrichment. Under the original U.S. plan, it would allegedly have taken Iran upwards of a year to produce enough additional LEU to once again have a militarily significant stockpile. The administration argued that the deal would set back Iran’s nuclear clock and put additional time on the diplomatic clock — both of which, it hoped, would reduce Israel’s sense of urgency about taking unilateral military action.
Read the full post here
As published for The Corner on nationalreview.com on October 29, 2009:
Maybe, as a former member of the Bush administration, I’m just too sensitive. But as a concerned citizen who desperately wants to give the administration the benefit of the doubt whenever I can for trying to do the right thing to defend and advance America’s vital interests around the world, they do occasionally make it very, very hard. Today’s example comes from an Associated Press report of Secretary of State Clinton’s trip to Pakistan where she met with a group of students:
As a way of repudiating past U.S. policies toward Pakistan, Clinton told the students “there is a huge difference” between the Obama administration’s approach and that of former President George W. Bush. “I spent my entire eight years in the Senate opposing him,” she said to a burst of applause from the audience of several hundred students. “So to me, it’s like daylight and dark.”
Does anyone advising President Obama and the secretary of state really believe that this kind of partisanship and trash-talking abroad about another American president is really going to buy us much long-term goodwill among either our friends or our adversaries? Do they imagine that this sort of thing really helps to advance U.S. national interests?
Read the post here
As published for Shadow Government on foreignpolicy.com on October 27, 2009:
By John Hannah
There are some noteworthy developments this past week on the Iraq front that merit attention. First, after Sunday’s horrible bombings in Baghdad, President Obama immediately phoned Prime Minister Maliki and President Talabani to offer condolences and reaffirm U.S. support. The president also issued a strong statement condemning the attacks and making clear that “America will stand with Iraq’s people and government as a close friend and partner as Iraqis prepare for elections early next year, continue to take responsibility for their future, and build greater peace and opportunity. Together, we will continue to work for lasting security, dignity, and justice.”
This response from the Obama administration was in stark contrast to two months ago, when twin suicide truck bombs hit the Iraqi Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs, killing at least 100 people and injuring hundreds more. The president was largely missing in action on that occasion — no phone calls, no statement. Instead, Vice President Biden spoke to Maliki and issued a one-sentence readout of the call.
Iraq’s heightened profile on the president’s radar screen is only to be applauded. With more than 100,000 American combat troops still in country, and Iraq’s success by no means a foregone conclusion, it’s entirely fitting that the commander-in-chief remain intensely focused on the situation there. With just this minor investment in time and political capital, Obama has reminded our soldiers, our enemies, and — perhaps most importantly – the Iraqi people, themselves, of America’s resolve to remain engaged and to help Iraqis consolidate their political, economic and security gains. For our Iraqi allies, it’s hard to over-estimate the reassurance provided by this kind of steady determination from the president of the United States.
Read the full article here
By John Hannah
My old boss, Dick Cheney, gave a speech last night blasting the Obama administration’s national security policy. One of his many targets was aninterview that Rahm Emanuel did with CNN this past weekend — in particular, Emanuel’s claim that President Obama’s current reassessment of Afghan policy was, for the first time ever, airing certain first-order questions about U.S. strategy. For officials of the previous administration, the objectionable portions of Emanuel’s remarks included the following:
And when you go through all the analysis, it’s clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that’s adrift. That we’re beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years. … And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops . . . before you make that decision, there’s a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it’s clear after eight years of war, that’s basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked.
The first problem with Emanuel’s charge, of course, is the inconvenient fact that the Obama administration, itself, already conducted an exhaustive review of Afghan policy this past spring. Remember? The one that had the president on March 27 unveiling a “comprehensive, new strategy” that “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.” The one that had the president sending another 21,000 American troops off to war?
Read the full article here
