Elliott Abrams on the Mideast
I had the opportunity earlier today to sit in on a CFR-sponsored media call with former White House Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. Currently a senior fellow with the Council, Abrams talked briefly on the elections in Israel, settlements, Iran's nuclear capabilities and Dennis Ross' position in the Obama White House.
Here are some of the takeaway points:
* Abrams expects the government forming process in Israel to go on for several weeks. Netanyahu understands the position he's in, and he has no desire to lead a Rightist government without Kadima and Labor.
* Don't expect the U.S. government to pressure Livni and Kadima. American administrations have been tied too often to political outcomes in the region, so it's unlikely that the Obama team will meddle in Israeli politics at this time.
* 2009 won't be the year for any kind of "final status" agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Abrams believes Israeli efforts would go much further if they improved the daily lives of Palestinians in the West Bank; close check points, help build up institutions and help them further improve upon economic conditions.
* A Palestinian unity government is unlikely, although the idea of a "technocratic" government - that is, one excluding both Hamas and the Fatah elements - has been floated.
* Abrams dismisses the popular argument that settlements in the West Bank have grown uncontrollably, and he doesn't see them being the primary obstacle to negotiations.
* A strike on Iran remains unlikely, but he would prefer that the Obama administration keep the threat of a strike on the negotiating table for leverage.
* Abrams called the situation on Dennis Ross a little peculiar, and said that the lack of clarity in Ross' position was for a couple of reasons. One was the "collapsing" of "available turf" to figures like George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke. The second problem may be the Obama administration's own uncertainty on a uniform Iran policy. Negotiating now, for instance, could empower current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. White House officials, according to Abrams, have remained ambiguous on Ross, stating that he will still likely travel and serve in some sort of "insider" envoy capacity.
MY THOUGHTS: Abrams, in my view, takes a rather nonchalant view of the impact Israeli settlements have had on the so-called peace process. The actual geography they consume, according to Abrams, hasn't expanded much in recent years. He does however note that there is a perceptual difference between settlers who commute to Tel Aviv and settlers with ideological motives for living beyond the wall. It's these settlers who are ganging up on, and in some cases even beating Palestinians. It's a bit myopic of Abrams to ignore the soft power implications of such incidents and demote it to a mere question of land taken and returned.
Abrams is equally casual when discussing a possible strike on Iran. By his estimate, an asymmetric response against American soldiers in the region would be unlikely because it would potentially place the Iranians in direct confrontation with the United States. But wouldn't an American air strike already constitute as a direct confrontation with the Americans? What would Tehran have to lose at this point? Isn't the point of asymmetric warfare, at least partly, to hide the handyman?
In Iran's case this is certainly true. It took President Clinton years to pin the Khobar Towers bombing on the Iranians, and even then the American response was unclear. The Iranians can hit the U.S. or Israel in several different countries, using any number of proxy organizations. You can count on this if Israel and/or Washington were to bomb Iran.
