Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

lol ok so we believe that when it's an iranian sponsored militia group whose activity has been entirely confined to yemen saying "death to america" that's a national security threat worth a military intervention. when it's a government pursuing nuclear weapons with a track record of sponsoring terrorism abroad saying "death to america", then we should sit down to talk.

did you miss the part where Yemeni/al Qaeda groups directly targeted Americans - obviously O's concern with Yemen is keeping a regime friendly to the US that continues to allow us to dronestrike whatever Al Qaeda jokers are still running around out there.

I can't rememeber the last time an Iranian-back group successfully attacked Americans, unless we wanna get into random shit that happened during the Iraq War. And besides, threat of nuclear power is obviously totally game-changing in terms of what strategies are on the table and what will be effective.

we're sitting down to talk with Iran because we don't have any proxy nations that are going to keep them in line militarily, and we can't invade, or fly drones over there to assassinate people. completely different scenario.

houthi != al-qaeada

if our concern is just suppressing al-qaeada in yemen, stopping the houthi seems like the wrong move there

I never said they were...? but it's pretty clear a Houthi regime will not give us free reign/coordinate activities, etc. like the previous regime did. so if we (or our proxies) can knock them off, hey win/win

xp

the middle east is an incoherent morass of conflicting agendas and ideologies that often are unpredictable and unstable, a "coherent, unifying strategy" is not possible

this is largely true, but obama’s FP still appears to me extraordinarily incoherent, imprudent, short-sighted, naive. e.g. it’s fucked up or worsened relations with allies; US is now not trusted by “friends” not respected by “enemies.”

my impression of Obama’s FP (cf. “don’t do stupid shit”) is that its coherence for Obama consists in the fact that it’s his, Obama’s, policy; he cares little about continuity or coherence with past US FP, or consequences for future US administrations. On the contrary: many of Obama’s decisions seem to have been driven by an impulse e.g. to contrast himself with Bush, i.e. not just to avoid Bush’s mistakes or prudently correct course (which by itself is laudable) but to mark the discontinuity between their administrations— more symbolically than in reality, yet sometimes to great cost (e.g. Obama’s great accomplishment of “ending the war in Iraq”).

So too, in terms of relations with or obligations to allies or other countries; seems like Obama doesn’t feel bound to abide by or cohere with such things insofar as they preexist his administration. Cf. the infamous “reset button” with Russia. Like: *he* didn’t make those promises; *he* didn’t choose the close alliance with Israel, etc. Things are different now because Obama is POTUS, and Obama is Obama (not Bush), and that by itself will fix American FP and the world.

imo it goes beyond a thoughtful re-evaluation and correction of American FP into a kind of egocentric recklessness. Sometimes it seems Obama is less concerned with long-term US geopolitical interests than his symbolic vision of himself & his legacy.

it’s fucked up or worsened relations with allies; US is now not trusted by “friends” not respected by “enemies.”

lol unlike during the Dubya admin

I don't think anyone on this thread or on ilx as a whole is defending dubya

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2015/03/25/01003-20150325ARTFIG00431-tensions-franco-americaines-sur-le-nucleaire-iranien.php

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/britain-foreign-secretary-iran-deal-reaction-116456.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqAuY3yOlXs

I'm not sure which significant allies' relationships you think have worsened because of Obama, (besides Israel - and I think Bibi deserves a large share of the blame there, given his taking US support for granted, doing whatever he wanted, basically telling Obama to get fucked from day one etc.)

xp

- I don't read French (do they still eat freedom fries over there)
- there's nothing in that article about Britain not trusting us
- lol military officials

lol unlike during the Dubya admin

no argument there! a lot of damage under bush. but when obama became potus he made much of the promise that he would repair relations with allies etc.; it appears to me that, if anything, he's not repaired but only worsened them.

and fwiw I feel weird to be the de facto defender of Obama here given that I don't support a bunch of what he's done (dronewars mostly) but the handwringing and apparently willful mischaracterizations in this thread are really out of touch with reality

xp

it appears to me that, if anything, he's not repaired but only worsened them.

really? is Merkel complaining about O's backrubs? are the French refusing to cooperate with us? Is South Korea unhappy with us?

those links not necessarily meant to corroborate my post; just some mid-east related links i found interesting today

But he said that whatever the negotiators produce should satisfy “99 percent” of people’s questions, while acknowledging that the expected looseness of the agreement opens the possibility that Secretary of State John Kerry will have a different version to talk about in Washington than Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif will bring back to Tehran.

This seems fucked up to me. Has there ever been a negotiating strategy that anticipates the two parties having different ideas about what was negotiated?

Merkel pretty unhappy w wiretapping iirc

they tried to do something similar imo during the recent I/P negotiations - they had this theory of negotiations that they'd produce an agreement alongside a set of dissents from both parties. essentially signing the negotiation before actually doing the compromising. seems like terrible statecraft theory to me.

haha ok I forgot about the wiretapping!

xp

(although even there I would say that's more sloppy operations than policy)

(btw inspired by love-in for 龜 today, just want to mention that i enjoy & appreciate reading the discussion & different perspectives on this thread)

agree that the negotiations w Iran sound ridiculous at this point - they're really grasping at straws, desperate to salvage anything. I'm sure Kerry/Obama don't want to admit failure in the face of the GOP's Senate letter stunt, among other things.

think this 'agreement before negotiation' is pretty emblematic. more negative interpretation is that the admin cares more about the symbol than actually negotiating. Maybe they think there's value in just chatting bc at least then you're building relationship but I think that's kinda naive about the relationships between states which are motivated by state interest and not on feeling good bc you have signed a meaningless piece of paper

As someone from an allied state, Obama fixed pretty much everything from day one, at least among the populace. You can say the same all over Europe. Even considering drones and wiretaps, etc.

re relations with other countries, thinking more of things which may not be prima facie apparent or openly expressed. e.g. reluctance to share sensitive intelligence with US, or not informing/ consulting with US before deciding on military strikes, or seeking closer ties with putin, etc. those seem serious consequences (actual & potential) of obama fp, not bush's

I think most of his impact probably came from day one- just that he was such a change from gwb and talked a good game

and talked a good game

well he got a nobel prize for that

Curious if France consulted at all w US on Mali

which may not be prima facie apparent or openly expressed. e.g. reluctance to share sensitive intelligence with US, or not informing/ consulting with US before deciding on military strikes, or seeking closer ties with putin, etc.

soooo ... things we can't verify iow

there are indications for all those things; though of course as always depends whether the sources are to be trusted. i maintain skepticism but it seems plausible to me

fine but imo it's p hard to paint what you suspect as being demonstrably *worse* than how things were with Dubya, where there were numerous and public spats with our allies

Allies def are more reluctant to share intelligence with US, but prob has most to do with all the leaks. Ie something that Obama has been quite draconian in cracking down on. Don't think anyone in europe is seeking closer ties with putin, he's quite willing to threaten to nuke us. But I wonder what France said about Mali as well.

fine but imo it's p hard to paint what you suspect as being demonstrably *worse* than how things were with Dubya, where there were numerous and public spats with our allies

fair point. and reference to bush (introduced by me) prob more distracting than illuminating.

Allies def are more reluctant to share intelligence with US, but prob has most to do with all the leaks.

but might have less to do with history of involuntary leaks than history of voluntary ones. for example, victory lap leaks made after killing bin laden on counterrorism methods (possibly resulting e.g. in pakistani physician informant’s arrest for treason); or the declassification in late february of hundreds of pages of hitherto secret information on israel’s nuclear program (in response to an FOIA request from 3 years ago; but timing of decision to release that info, right before netanyahu speech, seems not accidental to me). According to reports, arab allies apparently suspect obama admin would leak intelligence to iran, hence withheld info re military strikes in yemen: one way or another, seems obama admin has given allies serious reason to distrust US with intelligence.

x-post-Curious if France consulted at all w US on Mali

― Mordy, Friday, March 27, 2015 11:03

Not sure what you are trying to get at it here, but I think they did. Not seeing the article I recall about consultation, but once France went into Mali:

“We’ve provided information in support of the French since their operations began in Mali, … and we continue to consult with the French on further steps that we may take as U.S. government to support their efforts in Mali,” he said.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119077

Plus

France's foreign minister also said the 3-day-old intervention is gaining international support, with communications and transport help from the United States and backing from Britain, Denmark and other European countries

U.S. officials have said they had offered to send drones to Mali and were considering a broad range of options for assistance, including information-sharing and possibly allowing limited use of refueling tankers. British Prime Minister David Cameron also agreed to send aircraft to help transport troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/france-us-helping-support-mali-operation-181909624.html

i wasn't trying to "get at" anything specific - i was just curious what level of participation a french operation in mali would invite from the US.

re yemen, i saw war nerd has a piece about it:
http://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/

i haven't read it yet but i'm sure it's entertaining

It's a whole bunch of jokes about the ottomans, and then at the end it's all the fault of israel and the west, and i guess he's pro-baathist?

It's entertaining, alright. I have no idea what else to think about it, really.

Yemen history I did not know (if CNN is correct):

In 2009 the Saudis took military action against the Houthis in support of then President Ali Abdullah Saleh, using airstrikes and special forces, but were unable to subdue them....

...In the 1960s Egypt intervened in Yemen's civil war on behalf of the anti-royalists -- an operation that sapped the Egyptian army and contributed to its failure against the Israelis in the 1967 war.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/middleeast/yemen-freefall-lister/

Oh, just looked at that War nerd thing--guy wants you to believe he's independent or contrarian or something and has been in the area and studied it, but then he says overly broad dumb things like "Leftists demand respect for fascist thugs like Islamic State, as if they were the voice of the Muslim people."

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition of Arab countries that conducted airstrikes in Yemen on March 26 and 27, 2015, killed at least 11 and possibly as many as 34 civilians during the first day of bombings in Sanaa, the capital, Human Rights Watch said today. The 11 dead included 2 children and 2 women. Saudi and other warplanes also carried out strikes on apparent targets in the cities of Saada, Hodaida, Taiz, and Aden....

Human Rights Watch has not been able to determine whether specific attacks complied with the laws of war, which apply to the armed conflict in Yemen. The laws of war prohibit attacks that target civilians or civilian property, or that do not or cannot discriminate between civilians and fighters. Attacks that cause casualties or damage disproportionate to any anticipated military advantage are also prohibited. All parties to the conflict have an obligation to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians from harm, and not to deploy forces in densely populated areas.

Saudi Arabia’s past use of cluster bombs, which are indiscriminate weapons, raises concerns that they will be used in the current fighting, Human Rights Watch said. There is credible evidence that in November 2009 Saudi Arabia dropped cluster bombs in Yemen’s northern Saada governorate during fighting between the Houthis and the Yemeni and Saudi militaries.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/03/saudi-airstrikes-civilian.html

In some article it said that Saudis were trying to bomb the Houthis to to the negotiating table. Not so sure about that negotiating part, so far. Do Saudis really believe they can simply win the war and then reinstate the old guard and everything will be fine?

re France/USA/Mali, my understanding is that the USA was taken aback by the rapidness with which France acted---they'd been talking about France's plans, the USA thought France should think bigger in terms of ground forces, France didn't agree but rather than negotiate, just acted. partly it was to show off France's ability to use a light but not secret force, which the USA has struggled to do because of institutional forces in the US Army strongly favoring big actions

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/30/how-france-became-an-iran-hawk/

program, the United States and France, two strong allies, have found themselves increasingly at odds, at times quite publicly.

While the White House has been pushing hard for consensus on the framework for a deal ahead of the deadline, Paris has been pushing back. “Repeating that an agreement has to be reached by the end of March is a bad tactic. Pressure on ourselves to conclude at any price,” Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador in Washington, tweeted on March 20. On Tuesday, François Delattre, France’s ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran’s progress was “insufficient.”

The word from Paris has been equally unsupportive of the U.S. push for a deal. “France wants an agreement, but a robust one that really guarantees that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear power, but not the atomic bomb,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared on March 21.

[...]

Numerous French diplomats suspect that the United States, now that it is less dependent on Gulf oil, “pivoting” to Asia, and focused on fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving from a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability. This especially concerns the French because they have built strong political and defense relationships with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates in recent years.

The nuclear talks, French diplomats suspect, are just one part of a strategic rapprochement with Iran. Washington has practically subcontracted the war against the Islamic State’s forces in Iraq to Iranian special forces and Tehran’s Iraqi militia proxies. The French view this as a potentially counterproductive move, one more part of Washington’s turn away from its Sunni allies and toward Tehran.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

good news everybody, etc

those could be just astutely strategic words, like "no Palestinian state on my watch"

I don't know about astute but they could very well be strategic!

One of the writers of that foreignpolicy.com article you quoted Mordy, is from the conservative Hudson Institute. Thus it does not surprise me that he would ignore the US's support for Saudia Arabia in Yemen and in general, and then quote unnamed France officials regarding their alleged belief that the US is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving to a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability.

remain vigilant! obv i don't know how true it is or isn't. i'm sure the french have officials to say nonsense just like we do in the US.

at the same time it's not news that the french have been pushing for a stronger deal and that there has been [maybe only a little] daylight between them and the US on this:
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-seeks-boost-french-support-iran-deal-081130014.html

or In a sign of France’s determination, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called his negotiating team in Lausanne on Thursday to insist no deal could be forged that allowed for the rapid easing of U.N. Security Council measures, according to European officials.