SUMMARY, ANALYSIS, PUBLICATIONS, AND ARTICLES
Executive Summary
This week’s focus in the Washington think tank community is the growing number of scandals surrounding the Obama administration. However, there was a significant number of papers published on the Obama/Erdogan summit. The Monitor looks at the scandals and what they could mean politically.
The Monitor analysis also looks at the Erdogan/Obama summit and notes that Obama has relied too much on the ability of Turkey to act as a power broker in the region. Part of the reason was that Obama wanted a more passive foreign policy and preferred Turkey do the “heavy lifting.”
Think Tanks Activity Summary
The Heritage Foundation looks at the Obama Erdogan summit on Thursday. They suggest, “The U.S. and Turkey face growing threats from Syria ’s civil war, Iran ’s nuclear program, and Iraq ’s renewed sectarian violence. All three issues require greater bilateral cooperation as well as multilateral cooperation from NATO allies, Israel , and Jordan .”
The American Enterprise Institute looks at Turkey’s recent actions as it becomes obvious Turkey is a State sponsor of terrorism along with becoming more religious. “Erdogan has forced Turkey’s minority Alevis to attend Sunni religious classes, and he has flushed women from top levels of the state bureaucracy, advising them that instead of pursuing a career they should have at least three babies and ideally more. And Turkish women today find not just their careers at risk, but their lives. In 2011, Turkey’s justice minister reported to parliament that, between 2002 and 2009, the number of women murdered each year had increased 1,400 percent. Some of that is the result of better reporting, but the bulk appears to be due to a sharp rise in the number of honor killings: Would-be perpetrators are no longer deterred by fear of prosecution, as the increasingly conservative police forces sympathize with the Islamist notion of honor. Erdogan’s security forces arrest journalists with impunity; in ten years, according to Reporters without Frontiers, Erdogan has transformed his country into “the world’s biggest prison for journalists.” Regarding Hamas, AEI shows how Turkey has proven its alliance with pariah States like Iran, Sudan and Hamas. Turkey hosted Hamas leaders in Ankara while the West was trying to isolate the terrorist group. Moreover, Turkey’s support for terrorism neither begins nor ends with Hamas. Cuneyd Zapsu, one of the prime minister’s top advisers donated tens of thousands of dollars to an al-Qaeda–linked financier. This appears to be Turkey’s official position regarding al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, last year, the Turkish Islamist magazine Islam Dunyasi called for attacks on the United States. The Turkish government continues to support the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Turkey.
The CSIS also looks at the Erdogan visit and notes that Obama has extended every courtesy to show America’s regard for Turkey. They note, “The history of American-Turkish summit meetings in Washington shows that, almost irrespective of the substance of the private discussions between the leaders, the talks are invariably characterized as successful and Turkish leaders return home buoyed by having met their American counterparts in the White House. The unusual courtesies extended to Erdogan on this trip – the provision of Blair House and military honor guards, two separate meetings with Obama as well as a joint press conference – will help ensure that the trip will be characterized by the Turkish media as a triumph. However, only Erdogan will be able to determine whether it was indeed a success from Turkey ’s point of view and his judgment will, to a great extent, depend on what he was able to wrest out of Obama on Syria . After all, following his return to Turkey , Erdogan will be visiting Reyhanli which has been witness to rising tensions between the locals and Syrian refugees after the bombings coupled with increased questioning of the extent of Turkish involvement in the Syrian crisis.”
The Carnegie Endowment looks at the critical issues facing the US and Turkey. They note, “Now, the United States and Turkey must focus on the common objectives in Syria . While Syria is imploding, rising Syrian sectarianism is spilling over into neighboring countries and threatening the unity of Iraq and Lebanon . And as each day passes without a settlement strategy, the international community’s credibility is undermined. A regional initiative is urgently needed to counter these trends. If left unchecked, the Syrian crisis has the potential to unravel neighboring states already eaten away by the demons of sectarian strife.”
The Heritage Foundation makes its case for a more aggressive American role in Syria. It suggests Arab countries be more selective of who they support with arms. They suggest, “ Washington should become more assertive if it hopes to salvage a stable, nonsectarian, and tolerant Syria after the fall of Assad. It should not only provide greater support for the opposition itself but make stronger efforts to coordinate the aid programs of its allies and reduce the flow of aid to Syrian Islamist extremists. Specifically, it should: Press Qatar , Saudi Arabia , Turkey , and other allies to stop providing aid directly to Syrian groups. Instead, they should channel it through the Free Syrian Army, an umbrella group led by former Syrian army officers who have promoted a nationalist and nonsectarian agenda. Insist that Saudi Arabia , Qatar , and other oil kingdoms crack down on Islamist networks that have supported al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria . They should understand that if they fail to take stronger action against these networks, they will lose access to U.S. arms sales in the future.”
The American Foreign Policy Council look at US policy on dealing with Syrian Crisis. In summary, there’s a certain logic to Washington’s passivity. It is at least partly grounded in a savvy reading of American public opinion. A recent Rasmussen poll, for example, found that nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of respondents believe the United States should steer clear of the Syria conflict. Furthermore, some 61 percent of those polled backed Israel’s recent decision to carry out military strikes against Syria’s strategic arsenal. The writing is on the wall; after more than a decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans as a whole are fatigued of the Middle East and are comfortable with someone else handling this newest problem for them. Turkey is heavily involved in the Syrian conflict as it supports rebels and deals with hundreds of thousands of refugees on its southern border. Turkey’s government desperately wants the U.S. to step up and play a more active role in resolving the Syrian conflict – or, at the very least, in helping to keep the disorder from spreading. To that end, Turkey’s premier has already signaled his willingness to support a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone in Syria if one is created. This step, and a host of others (including the thorny issue of arming Syria’s rebels), is bound to be high on the agenda during Erdogan’s sit-down with President Obama on Thursday.
The Washington Institute looks at why the US must be more involved in Syria. In summary, a more decisive American engagement would simultaneously end doubts about the United States’ commitment to Syria and save Turkey from being pulled further into a conflict that threatens to derail the impressive political and economic progress of the last decade. Turkey is desperate for more US support for several major reason. Turkey’s blessing over the past decade has been its reputation as a stable country in an otherwise unstable region. But the war in Syria threatens these gains, and Mr. Erdogan’s political future. Turkey grows because it attracts international investment; and Turkey attracts investment because it is deemed stable. A spillover of the mess in Syria risks ending the country’s economic miracle. Turkey’s government believes that unless the balance of power in Syria is tilted in favor of the rebels now, the Syrian conflict will turn into an interminable sectarian civil war that pulls Hatay Province, and with it the rest of Turkey, into turmoil. Only Washington can change the equation. The infusion of American power, by arming the rebels or enforcing a no-fly zone, would change the military and regional dynamic and help unite the often squabbling “Friends of Syria” behind American leadership. Only direct American military engagement will rally the disparate parties that want to act against Mr. Assad into unified action.
The Carnegie Endowment looks at the comeback of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. It notes, “Despite its rich history of involvement in Syrian politics, for some the Brotherhood continues to be viewed as a foreign entity merely representing a local branch of the Egyptian movement. To win hearts and minds, the Syrian group needs to move more decisively to define itself in the context of its own considerable history. It will also need to fully address the circumstances that led to its thirty-year exile and demonstrate a willingness to reflect on the mistakes that were made in its early years. These steps would make it easier for religious minority communities, in particular Alawites, to understand the extent to which the Brotherhood has changed since the 1980s and to be open to assertions that the organization is now truly ready to embrace centrism as a defining ideological and political characteristic.”
The Carnegie Endowment looks at Egypt’s opposition. They caution, “ U.S. and other outside observers should ease up on their ritual lambasting of the Egyptian opposition. Harping on the opposition’s shortcomings as though it is somehow a uniquely deficient collection of individuals and groups is analytically ill-informed. Observers should instead proceed from the basic insight that the weaknesses of Egypt ’s opposition parties (and to some extent of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party) are thoroughly typical of parties in post-authoritarian contexts. In fact, the Egyptian opposition does not look so bad compared to the political opposition forces in other places at similar historical moments. It includes several politicians of genuine stature, such as Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei, and others less well-known but of real political energy and smarts.”
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies looks at “Egypt’s interior minister announcement of the arrest of three members of an al Qaeda cell plotting to attack a Western embassy.Mohammed Ibrahim said at a press conference that they eyed targets in Cairo and Alexandria but did not mention specific buildings. According to BBC News, Ibrahim “gave details about the discovery of 10kg (22lbs) of explosive material, a computer with files containing information on bomb-making and a flash memory with instructions on how to build rockets.” Ibrahim’s surprise press conference was televised on Cairo’s Channel 1 Television. Ibrahim named the suspects as Amr Muhammad Abu-al-Ila Aqidah, Muhammad Abd-al-Hamid Himidah Salih, and Muhammad Mustafa Muhammad Ibrahim Bayyumi. One of the three had contacted al Qaeda in Algeria, and also traveled to Iran and Pakistan for “military” training. Ibrahim added that the cell had online contacts with an al Qaeda member in Pakistan and a terrorist “responsible for receiving terrorists on Turkish borders.” One of their al Qaeda contacts is named Al Kurdi Dawuud al Asadi. Ibrahim said the al Qaeda operatives had previously taken direction from the so-called Nasr City Cell, which has numerous ties to Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) and al Qaeda.”
Brookings Institution looks at the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians when the State of Israel was declared. In summary, the article describes the Palestinian Nakba as being a current problem as Gaza and the West Bank are Ghettos, Israeli expansion continues and millions of Palestinians are displaced. In conclusion, they articles slams US efforts for peace process with Israel and Palestine because the right wing government is continuing its expansionist policies.“Netanyahu government has just announced, in response to Kerry’s land swap, the building of 300 units at the heart of the West Bank’s city, Ramallah.”
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies cover the controversial case in the Newseum journalist memorial as the Newseum was considering mourning the deaths of Mahmoud Al-Kumi and Hussam Salama, employees of Al-Aqsa TV and Hamas members. The FDD along with other groups pressured the Newseum to remove the Hamas terrorist from the list of journalists mourned. In summary, “Inspire is a glossy, English-language, online magazine published by al-Qaeda. It was conceived by Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric and al-Qaeda leader, who also contributed editorials. In 2011, President Obama ordered a drone strike against al-Awlaki as he was riding in a car in Yemen along with Samir Khan, Inspire’s Pakistani-American editor and publisher. So why hasn’t the Newseum — the interactive Washington museum of news and journalism — honored al-Awlaki and Kahn in its Journalist Memorial?” Moreover, FDD challenges the argument that Kumi and Salama were in a vehicle with TV painted on it, a criticism against the Israel Airforce bombing. However, FDD states that cars spray painted TV is a strategy used by Hamas often. “In this case, the letters “TV” had been crudely spray-painted in red on the hood. And, there is this easily researchable bit of background: In 2007, Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by terrorists driving a car marked “TV.”
The Council on Foreign Relations looks at instability in Jordan. They recommend, “The United States has important interests at stake in Jordan and should take steps now to lower the likelihood of major threats to Jordan ’s stability emerging in the near future. The most urgent factor contributing to instability in Jordan is financial; the IMF recently reported that Jordan ’s midterm fiscal situation appears positive, but to get to the “midterm,” especially if the regional security situation worsens, Jordan needs help. At the same time, Jordan cannot be insulated from the deepening crisis in Syria but it can be protected from its most negative repercussions.
The Washington Institute looks at the spasm of violence followed clashes between the Iraqi army and Sunni protesters and insurgents last month, where the federal government temporarily lost control of some town centers and urban neighborhoods in Kirkuk, Nineveh, and Diyala provinces. Moreover, armed civilian militias are reactivating, tit-for-tat bombings are targeting Sunni and Shiite mosques, and some Iraqi military forces are breaking down into ethnic-sectarian components or suffering from chronic absenteeism. Numerous segments of Iraq’s body politic — Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia — are exasperated over the government’s inability to address political or economic inequities, and are talking seriously about partition. Washington has played a positive role in helping end the sectarian instability in Iraq. Washington has been active in bringing Iraqi and Turkish officials together to discuss their long-term energy interests, encapsulated in the prospect of a strategic pipeline corridor that could see more Iraqi oil flowing through Turkey and less through the chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz close to Iran. Facing Sunni militancy and growing internal challenges from within his own Shiite community — as shown by unimpressive provincial election results — Maliki may be unusually open to taking conciliatory steps to mend his relations with the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, and the Turks.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies looks the Iranian regime’s nuclear program and how the Obama administration is dealing with this problem. In summary, FDD argues that the Iranian government does not take Obama’s red line threats seriously. “ Given Obama’s caution in Syria, his choice of dovish senior officials, his defense cuts, his parsimony in expressing his willingness to use force abroad, the queasiness of liberals about the legality of preemptive action, and the boldness of the Quds Force, the terrorist unit within the Revolutionary Guard Corps, in planning a bombing run against the Saudi ambassador in Washington in 2011 (the punishment for which was . . . more sanctions), Khamenei is no more concerned about this issue than the American left. As the Israelis and the French have always contended, enrichment and plutonium processing are the de facto benchmarks for weaponization.” Beside criticizing Obama’s weak stance towards Iran, FDD tries to debunk those labelled apologist for the Islamic Republic by highlighting human rights abuses by the Iranian government. Tehran also embraces terrorism. Tehran’s flirtation with the Sunni killer elite—the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization of Ayman al Zawahiri and al Qaeda (see the 9/11 Commission Report and more recent Treasury designations)—is seldom brought up. Tehran’s created Hezbollah (“Parties of God”)”
The Hudson Institute hosted a live event on The Rise of Islamists: Impact on religious minorities. The speakers focused on Pakistan and Iran as cases which show systematic and social oppression of minorities. In summary, Pakistan began a more tolerant nation according to one speaker. She described the first cabinet of Pakistani government which included all sects of Muslims and non-Muslims. The case of Rinkle Kumari’s forced conversion was included, showing the oppression of miniorities in Pakistan. In the constitution since 1974, is does not recognize Ahmadis as Muslims. Also, speaker cited 100 Christian homes burned in Lahore by Muslims. Regarding Iran, Behais are the most persecuted people, arrested for their beliefs. Also, speaker referenced Iranian authorities destroying a Sufi shrine in Iran in Isfahan. No Muslims stood up for the Sufis. As far as non-Muslims, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz were stood up for the Sufi cause while facing this oppression.
CSIS looks at US occupation of Afghanistan and weighs the benefits and costs if the US is to withdrawal in 2014. “One can argue that the size of past, or “sunk,” costs is no reason to stay, but the United States has sacrificed well over 2,000 dead and 18,000 wounded and our allies have lost nearly 1,100 dead. The cost of the war to the United States is well over $600 billion in existing expenditures and will ultimately exceed $1 trillion even if the United States totally leaves the country at the end of 2014 because of the legacy costs of pensions, medical treatment, death benefits, the need to replace equipment and supplies, and the transportation costs of leaving. The most obvious benefit is that leaving frees U.S. political, financial, and military resources at a time when the United States has many other higher priorities in the world. As soon as the United States leaves, the pressures that more than a decade of war has imposed on the U.S. military will be reduced. Today, Afghanistan is no longer a major center of the international terrorist threat to the United States. Iran, North Korea, and the wide range of violent extremist movements in other countries (including Pakistan) all have far higher priority.
The United States has no critical strategic interests in Central Asia that it can serve by staying in Afghanistan. If anything, its departure will force Russia and China to fill the gap in Central Asia and force local states to be more realistic in dealing with their own populations and needs.”
ANALYSIS
Obama and Erdogan Meet: Leaders under siege?
The last time both of these leaders met, in 2009, they were both at the top of their popularity. Obama was a new president promising a new approach to the Middle East . Erdogan and Turkey, meanwhile were seen as the key player to America’s strategy in the region. Not only was Turkey flexing its economic and political muscle, Erdogan had managed to develop important relationships with leaders in the Levant, especially Syria , that the US thought they could use.
Obama gambled a lot on Turkey’s and Erdogen’s ability to change the face of Middle East politics. In his 2009 Ankara trip, Obama’s first presidential visit to any Muslim land, he said the visit was, “a statement about the importance of Turkey not just to the United States but to the world.” He also said Turkey is “unique” and has “insights into a whole host of regional and strategic challenges that we may face.” Its “greatness” lies in its “ability to be at the center of things…This is not where East and West divide — this is where they come together.”
Meanwhile Erdogan was managing a more aggressive foreign policy and making good use of Turkish power and influence. He and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, trumpeted a new foreign policy of “zero problems with neighbors,” by which they expected to make Turkey the ultimate arbiter both of the conflicts within the region and of the region’s conflicts with the world.
When the “Arab Spring” came to Syria, Secretary of State Clinton declared that matters were safely in Turkey’s hands. American leadership not only was not needed, but would be counterproductive. This was an extension of Obama’s policy that American interference had in the past too often exacerbated rather than soothed difficulties in the Middle East .
The idea that Turkey would be able to exercise the influence of the Ottoman Empire of old was a big mistake on the part of the Obama Administration. In fact, this ceding of authority to Turkey was less recognition of a new policy by the US than an outgrowth of the Obama policy of not taking the initiative in any foreign policy realm. As is seen in Syria today, Obama is desperately looking for another nation to take the lead.
This was seen in Thursday’s joint press conference with Obama and Erdogan, when Obama danced around the issue that chemical weapons usage was a crossing of a “red line.” He called for additional evidence and spoke about international cooperation on denouncing chemical weapons. However, he refused to speak about potential American actions. He spoke instead of, “steady international pressure.”
Erdogan’s impatience with the Obama policy was seen when asked about US inaction in regards to Syria, he responded that he preferred to look at the part of the glass that was full, not empty. But, he also mentioned the need to engage Russia and China, who are supporters of Assad.
This week’s meeting between Obama and Erdogan was not a meeting of a superpower leader and the leader of an emerging regional power. Turkey needs American help. The Syrian civil war is boiling over and the Turkish influence Obama relied upon has failed to stop the war or moderate Assad’s actions.
Not only is Turkey facing a major refugee problem, it cannot contemplate any military action in the Syrian crisis, since that will necessarily requires the backing by the US. But, Turkey ’s military is not as powerful as it once was during the Cold War. Despite the recent agreement with the Kurdish insurgency, the Turkish military has trouble controlling large swaths of the southeast. And the Turkish air force continues to lose planes — the latest earlier this week — along the Syrian border. Erdogan has weakened Turkey ’s military infrastructure and one in five Turkish generals languish in prison on questionable charges.
Turkey lost its chance and opportunity to play the role of a regional power broker, something it can’t do anyway without US help.
Obama Scandals Build up
Historically the second terms of American presidents are troubled one filled with scandals and dropping poll numbers. Up until last month, it appeared that the Obama Administration was defying this trend, even though troubling revelations about Benghazi were still coming out.
This week, however, it appears that the second term curse has finally come to roost. The Administration’s original explanation about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi is falling apart. The Internal Revenue Service has admitted to targeting conservative political groups. And, the Obama Justice Department has begun to subpoena telephone records from reporters in order to find government leaks. The three promise to create a political perfect storm that may mean the effective end of Obama’s second term agenda. In fact, several questions at the joint Obama/Erdogan press conference were about the scandals instead of the Middle East .
The first issue is the Benghazi attack, which has been a low profile issue since the attack on September 11, 2012. Obama and Hillary Clinton said that the Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans started as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video? In the last few weeks, it has become apparent that the administration knew that it was a planned al-Qaeda attack and was deflecting the reason because of the upcoming election and the charge that Obama was weak on fighting the War on Terror.
Although a segment of the population followed the issue, it didn’t galvanize opinion. Americans don’t follow international issues much and so the revelations that have been coming out have only been of interest to a select group, usually those normally opposed to Obama policies.
The second issue – the revelation that the IRS was targeting conservative political groups will have more traction. The IRS is universally disliked and mistrusted. And, since it collects taxes, it is a pocketbook issue. Since nearly every adult American has to deal with the IRS, questions about their reliability suddenly get the attention of the average voter.
The use of the IRS for political purposes also harks back to Watergate and Nixon’s actions that led to his resignation – a link that was reinforced when Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, who wrote the news articles that brought Nixon down, went on TV and called the recent conduct of the Obama administration “outrageous,” and their pattern of behavior “a nuclear event” waiting to happen.
There are a lot of questions about the IRS behavior. At first, the administration tried to say it was low level employees just in one office in Cincinnati . Since, then, it has been revealed that high level officials were involved in several offices, including the one in Washington . It also appears that this was known for a while and Congress was kept in the dark.
The third scandal is the truly damaging one – attacking the press. Benghazi and the IRS stories might have been kept under control by the White House if the Justice Department hadn’t gone after the media. However, the U.S. Department of Justice secretly obtained two months’ worth of telephone records from Associated Press reporters and editors, the news service announced on Monday. In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.
The media was outraged. AP president and CEO Gary Pruitt said the government’s actions were unacceptable, and demanded the phone records be returned and all copies destroyed. “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” he said.
Suddenly the chemistry has changed. Reporters are upset at the attacks on them. With other brewing scandals, the media has an opportunity to strike back at the White House. No doubt, they all remember Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein, whose investigative reporting brought the downfall of Nixon and gave them journalistic immortality.
Assuming that the second term curse has taken place, what does it hold for the Obama Administration? Could he be impeached convicted and forced out of office, or be forced to resign? The chances are low at this time. Congress has only impeached two presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither was convicted and both served out their terms.
Republicans are also wary about going the impeachment route lest it look political. They are more likely to allow a damaged Obama to remain in office. They will also target Hillary Clinton and her actions during the Benghazi attacks in hopes of damaging any hope she has of running for president in 2016.
So, what are the likely outcomes of the current scandals?
The first is the end of Obama’s second administration legislative agenda. Not only will he be too busy managing damage control for the next few years, he will not have the political popularity to help senators or congressmen who may be critical votes for his plans. This is especially true for the Republican congressmen he must persuade in order to get anything he wants passed through the House. A damaged, unpopular president can’t threaten to campaign against a congressman and make the threat stick. In fact, he may find Democrats avoiding him for the next 3 1/5 years.
The result is that the immigration bill may falter and not make it through the House of Representatives. Gun control is also dead. A debt ceiling deal may pass this fall, but it will require more compromise with Republicans than in the past.
There will be some legislation that comes out of this. A revamping of the IRS and a cutback in IRS funding are likely. This may even be tied into some tax reform that simplifies taxes and reduces IRS power. There will also be some legislative momentum to change Obamacare since the IRS was the major enforcement agency in the plan.
This will also impact the congressional elections next year. The sixth year of an administration is usually a poor one for the president’s allies in Congress and 2014 won’t be any different. This means that many potential Democratic candidates may not run, while some Republicans may be convinced that this is the year to run for higher office. The result is that the chances of the Republicans retaking the Senate and retaining control of the House have grown. It also helps the Republican Party at the state level too.
There will also be personnel changes in the Administration. Some will be forced to resign as a result of the investigations. However, many unrelated resignations can be expected. Many administration officials may decide to leave before the administration’s reputation (and consequently theirs) is tarnished. They will move to law partnerships, lobbying firms, and college professorships.
The administration will also find it harder to recruit new people to fill these positions. Not only are nominees looking at a harder confirmation process in a Republican Senate, there is less to be gained in holding an office for the last couple of years for a crippled administration.
There could also be an impact on foreign policy. Since foreign affairs are solely in the president’s power, Obama may try to regain some political momentum with an international initiative or by becoming “tough” in the War on Terror.
A politically crippled Obama might be more willing to take an aggressive stance in Syria or towards Iran or North Korea in order to gain some voter popularity. He might also try to restart the Middle East peace process or work at some nuclear agreement with Russia .
Of course, Obama could ride out these scandals and finish his term on the upswing. However, history is against him. American voters have a tendency to tire of a president and his party after about six years and begin to look at the other party. This has been the case for the last 70 years, with few exceptions.
PUBLICATIONS
Syria Crisis: U.S. Leadership Needed to Coordinate Allies
By James Phillips
Heritage Foundation
May 16, 2013
One negative implication of the Obama Administration’s “lead from behind” efforts on the worsening Syria crisis is that U.S. allies have independently stepped forward to advance their own interests by backing various rival groups within the ad hoc Syrian opposition coalition. These external aid efforts, often pursued with little coordination, have bolstered Islamist extremist groups within Syria , exacerbated tensions between rival opposition groups, and undermined the unity of the rebel forces. If Washington continues its hands-off policy toward Syria , then Syria is likely to devolve into an anarchic patchwork of warring fiefdoms that will provide fertile ground for al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist organizations.
Read more
U.S.–Turkish Relations: Greater Cooperation Should Be Goal of Obama–Erdogan Meeting
By James Phillips
Heritage Foundation
May 15, 2013
The deepening crisis in Syria will dominate Erdogan’s meeting with Obama on May 16. Erdogan has played a leading role in orchestrating support for the Syrian opposition. Turkey has offered sanctuary to more than 400,000 Syrian refugees and has cooperated with Saudi Arabia and Qatar in funneling arms to the opposition. Rising tensions with Syria have triggered cross-border artillery attacks, the downing of a Turkish warplane by Syrian missiles, and the deployment of NATO Patriot air defense systems along the border with Syria last year. Turkey has blamed Syria for the May 11 car bomb attacks that killed 50 people in Reyhanli, a border town that serves as a hub for Syrian refugees in Turkey . This terrorist outrage is likely to spur Erdogan to step up his appeals for stronger international action against Syria ’s rogue regime. He has pressed Washington to impose a no-fly zone over Syria , contribute arms to Syria ’s opposition, and help create safe zones inside Syria to stem the flow of refugees into Turkey . At the White House, Erdogan will undoubtedly make a renewed pitch for a more assertive U.S. policy in ousting Bashar al-Assad.
Read more
Erdogan Back at the White House
By Bulent Aliriza
Center for Strategic and International Studies
May 15, 2013
On May 16 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan meets President Barack Obama on his first visit to the White House since December 2009. Obama has reserved much of his schedule for the day to his visitor, who has won three successive elections, recently celebrated a decade as prime minister and is brimming with self-confidence. The Turkish leader will receive a very warm welcome from his host that will serve to confirm Erdogan’s view of his country’s enhanced stature in the international community. At the same time, the encounter will provide an opportunity for the two leaders to once again display their much-publicized mutual affinity. However, there are divergences, particularly on the Syrian crisis, that they will attempt to resolve or minimize behind the scenes.
Read more
The Muslim Brotherhood Prepares for a Comeback in Syria
By Raphaël Lefèvre
Carnegie Endowment
May 15, 2013
The Muslim Brotherhood is the most powerful group in Syria’s exiled political opposition network. It is also emerging as a significant presence in rebel-held territory in northern Syria , where it is rebuilding its grassroots movement after thirty years in exile. But the Brotherhood’s success in the next stage of the Syrian revolution depends on its ability to address several significant challenges. The Brotherhood is Syria ’s best organized opposition group. Its political strategy rests on building a network of alliances with various ideological and religious forces, even if they seem inconsistent. It can count on a network of committed activists inside and outside the country and on powerful fundraising capacities. The Brotherhood is dominated by an old guard. But a younger generation of Brothers is dynamic, innovative, more liberal, and increasingly impatient to exercise more influence. The youth are poised to play a powerful role in the Brotherhood’s reconstruction efforts. Many Syrians mistrust the Brotherhood because of the years it spent in exile and its deeply entrenched culture of secrecy and hierarchical rigidity.
Read more
Ankara and Washington Need an Ambitious Approach to Syria
By Sinan Ülgen
Carnegie Endowment
May 15, 2013
The time has come for more ambitious policy responses to the increasingly intractable Syrian civil war. When U.S. President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan meet in the White House today, Ankara should champion a regional initiative on Syria that includes Iran . The two leaders will have to consider this difficult option if they are to prevent the Syrian crisis from further undermining regional stability and the international order. The conflict is already reverberating across the region. The spillover was painfully clear on May 11 when car bombs in the Turkish town of Reyhanlı , near the Syrian border, led to more than 50 casualties—the deadliest terrorist attack in the country’s history. The Turkish authorities have been quick to hold the Syrian regime responsible, but many Turks blame the government for having entangled Turkey in this deadly conflict.
Read more
Egypt’s Dismal Opposition: A Second Look
By Thomas Carothers
Carnegie Endowment
May 14, 2013
Mention Egypt’s political opposition in any Washington foreign policy gathering and a chorus of exasperation and laments will almost certainly follow. As James Traub wrote recently, “the administration’s view of the opposition is like almost everyone’s view of the opposition—it’s feckless, lazy, and disorganized, happier sulking in Cairo than campaigning in the countryside.” Last month, Thomas Friedman cited the weakness of Egypt ’s opposition as one of the two biggest surprises of the post–Arab Spring period.
This critical view comprises several main charges: Egypt ’s opposition leaders are Cairo-centric elites who cannot be bothered to devote time and energy to build sustainable grassroots bases and party networks. They are a fractious, squabbling bunch who devote too much time to forming and re-forming myriad small parties rather than joining forces in a few large ones. And they fail to put forward concrete proposals to solve the country’s most glaring problems, especially the perilous economic situation. U.S. officials, analysts, and journalists repeat these criticisms over and over, often punctuating their comments with audible sighs of frustration.
Read more
Political Instability in Jordan
By Robert Satloff
Council on Foreign Relations
May 16, 2013
Jordan has so far weathered the political storm that has engulfed much of the Middle East since late 2010. However, several emerging challenges have the potential to develop into serious threats to the stability of the Hashemite Kingdom . While Jordan ’s moderate, nonideological, and revolution-adverse political culture is a strong mitigating factor, the risk of domestic instability is greater today than at any time since the country’s bloody 1970–71 period. For the United States, systemic political change that is the product of instability—which, for example, would result in the abdication or removal of King Abdullah, a dramatically altered monarchical system, or the demise of the monarchy, replaced by an anti-Western form of government—could lead to Jordanian policies inimical to U.S. interests. Given Jordan ’s pro-West strategic orientation, commitment to peace with Israel , and cooperation on counterterrorism and security matters, the United States has a strong interest in helping Amman manage potentially destabilizing change.
Read more
Egyptian Interior Minister: Al Qaeda Cell Plotted Suicide Attack Against Western Embassy
Thomas Joscelyn
11th May 2013
FDD
Egypt’s interior minister announced today the arrest of three members of an al Qaeda cell who were plotting to attack a Western embassy. “The interior ministry was able to direct a qualitative blow to a terrorist cell which was planning to carry out suicide attacks against vital, important and foreign establishments,” Mohammed Ibrahim said at a press conference. Ibrahim did not name the embassy that the trio was targeting, but he did say that they eyed targets in Cairo and Alexandria. According to BBC News, Ibrahim “gave details about the discovery of 10kg (22lbs) of explosive material, a computer with files containing information on bomb-making and a flash memory with instructions on how to build rockets.”
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/egyptian-interior-minister-al-qaeda-cell-plotted-suicide-attack-against-wes/#sthash.QXn6Lijg.dpuf
Radioactive Regime
Reuel Marc Gerecht
13th May 2013
FDD
The list is long of Occidentals who’ve fallen for Persia. This isn’t surprising. Compared with Arab lands save Egypt, Iran has a longer history—Hegel described the Persians as “the first Historic people”—and a more layered modern identity. Compared with the Turks, whose indefatigable martial spirit is reified in the unadorned stone power of Istanbul’s magnificent mosques, Iranians are more playful and mercurial. Isfahan’s Sheikh Loftallah Mosque, with its delicate polychrome tiles, its shifting, asymmetrical shapes radiating from the dome’s apex as a peacock, captures brilliantly the Persian love of complexity, synthesis, and whimsy. Its patron, Shah Abbas the Great, a curious, wine-loving, absolute monarch, captured the imagination of contemporary Europeans, including Shakespeare.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/radioactive-regime/#sthash.0QovbcRl.dpuf
Night at the Newseum
Is one man’s terrorist another man’s bureau chief?
Clifford D. May
16th May 2013 - Scripps Howard News Service
Inspire is a glossy, English-language, online magazine published by al-Qaeda. It was conceived by Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric and al-Qaeda leader, who also contributed editorials. In 2011, President Obama ordered a drone strike against al-Awlaki as he was riding in a car in Yemen along with Samir Khan, Inspire’s Pakistani-American editor and publisher. So why hasn’t the Newseum — the interactive Washington museum of news and journalism — honored al-Awlaki and Kahn in its Journalist Memorial?
See more at:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/night-at-the-newseum/#sthash.hYhKumtm.dpuf
Erdogan’s agenda
Turkey was once a staunch ally of the West and a reasonably free country. No longer.
Michael Rubin May 16, 2013
Later today, President Barack Obama will sit down with Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the Oval Office. It will be a friendly reunion. Obama has said Erdogan is one of the few foreign leaders with whom he has developed “friendships and the bonds of trust.” Speaking to the Turkish parliament four years ago, on his first trip abroad as president, Obama declared, “Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together — and work together — to overcome the challenges of our time.” These challenges are many — among them, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. While Turkey and America partnered for the greater good throughout the Cold War, no amount of White House praise can hide the fact that Turkey today is less a bridge between the West and the Islamic world and, increasingly, a force undermining trust and cooperation.
http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/erdogans-agenda/
The Rise of Islamism: The Impact on Religious Minorities
Hudson Institute
5.15.2013
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/32864783
Turkey To America: Step Up In Syria
By Ilan Berman
U.S. News & World Report
May 15, 2013
This week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrives in Washington for a much publicized state visit. The Turkish leader won’t simply be making a courtesy call, however. His U.S. mission is largely aimed at achieving one purpose: goading the Obama administration into taking greater action on Syria.
That’s something of a tall order. Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in March of 2011, the United States has steadfastly avoided joining the fray – or even crafting a coherent strategy toward the conflict taking place between Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his own people. This inaction has made the White House the object of withering criticism at home and abroad, but to little avail (at least so far).
http://www.afpc.org/publication_listings/viewArticle/1922
Can Obama Save Turkey from a Syrian Quagmire?
Soner Cagaptay and James F. Jeffrey
New York Times
May 17, 2013
More decisive American engagement would simultaneously end doubts about the United States’ commitment to Syria and save Turkey from being pulled further into a conflict that threatens to derail the impressive political and economic progress of the last decade.
When Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met President Obama at the White House on Thursday, the most pressing topic was the war in Syria. Turkey has not faced a threat on this scale since Stalin demanded territory from the Turks in 1945.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/can-obama-save-turkey-from-a-syrian-quagmire
Yes, Iraq Is Unraveling
Michael Knights
Foreign Policy
May 15, 2013
Washington Institute
Loosening the ties that bind Iraq together is a risk, but holding too tightly is the greater danger.
As American troops were pulling out of Iraq in 2010, the U.S. effort to stabilize the country resembled the task of an exhausted man who had just pushed a huge boulder up a steep hill. Momentum had been painstakingly built up and the crest approached. Was it safe to stop pushing and hope that the momentum would take the boulder over the top? Or would the boulder grind to a halt and then slowly, frighteningly roll back toward us?
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/yes-iraq-is-unraveling
Afghanistan: The Real World Choices in Staying or Leaving
By Anthony H. Cordesman
May 16, 2013
CSIS
The United States cannot afford to blunder its way into staying in Afghanistan, or to blunder its way out by making the wrong decisions about whether and how to stay. However, blundering seems to be the present option, complicated by long delays in time-sensitive decisions, debates over whether resources should go to other strategic priorities or domestic programs, and sub-debates over the priority for counterinsurgency versus counterterrorism.
http://csis.org/publication/afghanistan-real-world-choices-staying-or-leaving
65 Years After ’Catastrophe,’ Palestinians Have Little to Cheer About
By: Ibrahim Sharqieh
Brookings Institution
On May 15, the Palestinians will commemorate 65 years of their “Nakba” – “the Catastrophe.” This is how they describe 1948, which saw the destruction of Palestinian society, 750,000 Palestinians forced from their homes, and over 450 Palestinian towns wiped off the map. Today, there are over 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations’ UNRWA. But while 1948 was a terrible trauma for the collective Palestinian memory, the reality is that it was only the beginning of a long journey of displacement, dispossession, and exile. The real Nakba is ongoing, and the Palestinian people live it on a daily basis both inside and outside the Palestinian territories. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry throws himself into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, we have to ask: Will his efforts bring this human tragedy a step closer to the end? Or only make it worse?
RLS
