My new piece on Iran and sanctions, published today on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel...

Getting over the sanctions delusion

Recently I was talking with a friend from the military-intelligence world about the mounting pressure on Congress to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act - legislation aimed at "crippling" Iran's civilian economy.  Reportedly a House-Senate conference is already informally underway trying to craft a consensus version of the bill, and last week AIPAC sent a message to every Member of Congress urging that IRPSA be enacted "without delay."

I explained that in my view sanctions aimed at civilians were a bad idea, and that sanctions in general, while a potentially powerful tool, do not, on their own constitute a policy.  My friend's  response? "Sanctions are the sign of a failed policy, period."

He makes a good point.  Fundamentally, sanctions are how the US tells a foreign government:  we don't like you, we can't convince you to see things our way, and we can't (or aren't ready to) overthrow you - so get ready to feel some pain.

As President Obama embarks on his second year in office, he and his team continue to reiterate their commitment to achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. Indeed, President Obama's peace team remains actively engaged and for the first time in months there are encouraging signs of progress toward renewing peace talks.  

An important lesson from 2009, however, is that it will take more than patience and polite words to make peace.  In his first year in office, President Obama articulated a clear vision for Middle East peace, worked tirelessly to make progress toward that goal, and in tangible terms achieved something significant, in the form of Israel's decision to adopt a partial settlement moratorium.  His efforts to make further progress, however, were stymied by intransigence on the part of both Israel and the Palestinians, by lack of clear buy-in and support from the Arab world, and by his own resolve to be unfailingly patient and polite, regardless of the behavior of others.    

In order to achieve a breakthrough toward peace in 2010, the Obama Administration will have to be prepared to play political hardball, re-orienting the US approach to Middle East peace efforts in the following ways:

The press almost unanimously reported, and pundits almost unanimously agreed, that the Secretary of State's comments in Jerusalem meant that the Obama Administration had retreated on its position that a full settlement freeze was a precondition for negotiations.  This in turn established the now dominant narrative that the Obama Administration's peace effort is an abject failure, that Obama and Mitchell have been bested by Netanyahu, and that the US has caved on settlements.  

The problem is that the premise of this narrative - that the US had demanded a total freeze as a precondition for negotiations - is incorrect.  Neither Obama nor any Obama Administration official ever stated that a full settlement freeze was a precondition for negotiations.  One can debate whether they should have done so, or whether they should have done a better job making clear what the policy was or managing expectations, but it is simply inaccurate to state that this was the Administration's policy.

It should surprise no one that the media and pundits prefer to view Middle East peace effort through a lens of controversy.  Reporting that Mitchell took another trip and held more closed-door meetings is not interesting.  Saying that Clinton went to Jerusalem and nothing happened is not news.  (Likewise, the definition of "unprecedented" is not especially newsworthy.  For the record, the word means "having no previous example" - not, as some seem to think, "laudable," "fantastic," "satisfying our demands" or "consistent with US policy.")

I read Tom Friedman's piece in yesterday's New York Times and I had to smile.   

Why?  Because Friedman (no relation) has become so predictable in his analysis that I actually had already written my response.  

And then I smiled again, because I realized that if you take the piece at face value, Friedman is calling for US punitive action against Israel - cutting off of all aid - that has never been seriously considered and would never be taken.  Or if that is not what he means, then he has been tripped up by his own excessively glib analysis.  My guess is that it is the latter.   

Today APN issued the following statement regarding H. Res. 867, the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives "Calling on the President and Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora:"

APN is on the record - in detail - explaining our concerns over proposed "crippling" sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's access to refined petroleum products (the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act - IRPSA).  Now the Obama Administration is much more clearly on the record on this issue, too, with Obama officials testifying 10/6/09 before the Senate Banking Committee over the issue of Iran and possible new sanctions (video of the hearing here; NIAC has posted broader analysis of the hearing here). 

And what Obama officials were saying about the sanctions -- including alluding to concerns that they would harm civilians rather than the government and could thus be counterproductive, and emphasizing the need for multilateral, rather than unilateral, action -- would seem to indicate that they share many of our concerns about this particular sanctions initiative. 

Key excerpts from the hearing are copied here:

Special analysis from Daniel Seidemann (Ir Amim) and Lara Friedman (Americans for Peace Now)

 

The recent violence on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif is only the latest indication of the rising level of tension in Jerusalem - tension that has been steadily increasing for months.  The potential for a highly disruptive, violent conflagration in Jerusalem is more likely now than at any point since the visit of then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount in September 2000, triggering the worst wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence since 1967. Indeed, as the world is coming to recognize, the current mix of destabilizing factors at play is hauntingly familiar - resembling the period that led to the outbreak of the second Intifada. 

Today's top story is of course the news about Iran.  The bad news is that Iran's nuclear program clearly is continuing apace, with all of the threats that program poses to US national security interests and, of course, to Israel.  The good news is that where in the past this development would have elicited a predictably one-dimensional response from the US -- outrage, denunciations, threats, saber-rattling, and statements that "Iran knows what it has to do, or else," (and perhaps even a rush to rash military action) -- President Obama has adopted a different course.  President Obama today is sending a message to Iran -- and to the Iranian people -- that this issue must be resolved, and that there is before them a real and credible opportunity to resolve it through negotiations and engagement.  To be sure, President Obama is not taking any options off the table, but by emphasizing the potential for engagement rather than for confrontation, he is adopting what APN has long argued is the most effective strategy for actually resolving the nuclear issue.

 

President Obama's statement, along with those of President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown, is as follows:

 

THE WHITE HOUSE -  Office of the Press Secretary

 ______________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 23, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery

"Responsibility for our Common Future"

Address to the United Nations General Assembly

September 23, 2009

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: it is my honor to address you for the first time as the forty-fourth President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

 

I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted - I believe - in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope - the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

September 22, 2009

 

 

PRESS BRIEFING BY

U.N. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE GEORGE MITCHELL,

ON THE PRESIDENT'S TRILATERAL MEETING

WITH PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU OF ISRAEL

AND PRESIDENT ABBAS OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

 

Press Filing Center

Waldorf Astoria

New York, New York

 

 

2:24 P.M. EDT

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Good afternoon.  Sorry we're running a little bit late today.  We will do a statement from, and take some questions -- our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, former Senator George Mitchell.

 

     SENATOR MITCHELL:  Thank you, Robert.  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I'll make a brief statement, and then I'll be pleased to respond to your questions.

 

     The President had direct and constructive meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and then he held his first trilateral meeting with the two leaders.  As the President said, this was an important moment.  Let me first give you some brief details.

 

     Each of the three meetings was about 40 minutes long.  The tone was positive and determined.  The President made clear his commitment to moving forward, and the leaders shared their commitment.  In the meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones, Tom Donilon and myself.  For the trilateral meeting, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones and myself.