Recognizing the critical nature of these challenges, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Saban Center at Brookings undertook an eighteen-month long effort to generate a new Mideast strategy, taking a fresh approach to longstanding policy challenges. The resulting policy recommendations are presented in a new book entitled, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. The recommendations were produced by a Brookings-CFR strategy group that was established in July 2007. For the first time in the two organizations’ histories, Brookings and CFR joined forces, bringing together their leading Middle East experts to focus on urgent policy questions. Over the course of the 18 months of research, the strategy group members conducted fact-finding meetings and consultations in the Middle East and the U.S., interviewing regional leaders as well as leading U.S. experts from the public and private sectors.

On December 2, Brookings hosted the authors of the book’s strategic overview chapter: Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass; Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy Director and project co-director Martin Indyk; and Council on Foreign Relations Director of Studies and project co-director Gary Samore. The discussion was moderated by David Gregory, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Host of MSNBC’s “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

      

 

 

Such strikes are a painful necessity in the post-9/11 era, where U.S. foes cannot be found nor fought on a conventional battlefield. When terrorists can plot and organize with impunity, as they could in Afghanistan under the Taliban before 9/11, they become far more deadly. Killing terrorist leaders can disrupt a group’s operations, force its leaders underground, and at times even cripple the group permanently. But targeted killings carry a heavy moral burden, risk complicating diplomatic goals, and require difficult conditions to succeed.

Read the full article »

      

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Iraq has become one of the most divisive and polarizing issues in modern American history. It is now a subject on which Republicans and Democrats tend to disagree fundamentally about the past (the reasons for going to war), the present (the impact of the “surge” in American forces), and the future of American policy (how quickly, and in what way, American forces should leave Iraq). Reflecting this divide, the two presidential candidates staked out starkly opposite positions during the campaign, with much of the public debate more emotional and ideological than substantive.

With the campaign over and a new president entering office, the debate should change to one of substance over politics. Recent trends suggest that the United States may be able to reduce significantly its forces in Iraq fairly soon, premised not on the certainty of defeat, but on the likelihood of some measure of success. The past eighteen to twenty four months have seen a remarkable series of positive developments in Iraq that offer hope that the United States may be able to ensure stability in Iraq while redeploying large numbers of American forces sooner rather than later.

The likelihood of this outcome should not be overstated. Because of the remarkable developments of recent months, it is more than just a long-shot, best-case scenario—but it is hardly a sure thing. Challenges still abound in Iraq, and their nature changes over time even as the overall risk they pose slowly abates. Thus, as a new crop of problems moves to center stage, coping with them will require the United States and its Iraqi allies to make important shifts in strategy and tactics rather than to just stick with approaches that succeeded against problems now receding in importance.

In our judgment, now that the surge is over, any further drawdowns should be gradual until after Iraq gets through two big rounds of elections of its own—provincial elections to be held perhaps in early 2009, and follow-on national elections. These have the potential either to lock in place important gains or to reopen old wounds. But starting as early as 2010, if current trends continue, President Obama may be able to begin cutting back on U.S. forces in Iraq, possibly halving the total American commitment by late 2010 or 2011, without running excessive risks with the stability of Iraq and the wider Persian Gulf region.

Faster reductions would be ill-advised. But if undertaken nevertheless, it is important that they be balanced. Both combat and support functions from the United States will be necessary for years to come in Iraq; rapid drawdowns that leave an imbalanced residual force without major combat formations would be worse than rapid cuts that preserve significant combat capability.

This approach suggests another difficult year or two ahead for the brave and committed men and women of the U.S. armed forces, especially as the United States likely undertakes to increase forces in Afghanistan modestly in 2009. Although the American military is under considerable strain, most trends in recruiting, reenlistment, and other indicators of morale and resilience are relatively stable. And with the surge over, the worst of the overdeployment problem is beginning to pass. Compared with the alternative of risking defeat in a major war vital to critical American interests, concerns about the health of the military should not therefore, in our judgment, be the main determinant of future strategy.

Our suggested approach is “conditions-based” and somewhat gradual in the time horizon envisioned for reducing American forces in Iraq. But it also foresees the possibility that most (though not all) main American combat forces will come out of Iraq by 2011, and it further argues that the United States needs to continue to seek ways to gain leverage over Iraqi decisionmakers rather than assure them of an unconditional and open-ended U.S. commitment.

Although this approach matches neither of the divergent strands of American thought prevalent before the election, it thus parallels aspects of both. Similarly, it reflects important elements of Iraqi political reality if not its recent rhetoric. Iraqi prime minister Nouri al- Maliki has partisan incentives to favor rhetoric calling for rapid U.S. withdrawals, and he may overestimate his own military’s ability to perform in the absence of U.S. troops. But his actual ability to secure Iraq without a significant U.S. force has serious limits, and his own commanders’ awareness of this may yield an emphasis on aspirational goals for U.S. withdrawals rather than binding commitments. Implementation details always matter in Iraqi politics, and there may be more room for a continuing U.S. presence than there sometimes appears to be in the declaratory stances of Iraqi politicians.

      

 

 

For six years, US policy in the Middle East has been dominated by Iraq. This need not and should not continue. The Obama administration will be able gradually to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq and shift responsibility to Iraqi forces. The drawdown will have to be executed deliberately so as not to risk undoing recent progress.

The improved situation in Iraq allows the new US administration to shift its focus to Iran, where the clock is ticking on a dangerous nuclear programme. While failing to head off this programme, President George W. Bush succeeded in removing Tehran’s most threatening enemies – the Taliban and Saddam Hussein – inadvertently opening the door to an Iranian bid for regional primacy.

The initial aim of the Obama administration should be to limit Iran’s nuclear programme rather than remove or isolate the regime. Mr Obama should offer direct official engagement with the Iranian government, without preconditions, along with other diplomatic, energy, economic and security incentives, to turn Tehran away from developing the capacity to rapidly produce substantial amounts of nuclear-weapons-grade fuel. He should lay the groundwork for an international effort to impose harsher sanctions on Iran if it proves unwilling to change course – sanctions that will have more bite now the price of oil has dropped below $50 a barrel. The entire package should be made public so that Iran’s leaders are forced to explain at home why they would choose their nuclear ambitions over a better standard of living for the Iranian people and greater international acceptance.

Preventive military action against Iran by either the US or Israel is an unattractive option. But it needs to be examined carefully as a last-ditch alternative to the dangers of living with an Iranian nuclear bomb – dangers that include putting the region on a hair-trigger, further emboldening Iran and prompting several Arab governments to pursue nuclear programmes of their own. Some of these effects could be ameliorated by providing missile defence and security assurances to regional allies and making a clear declaratory warning to Iran.

The Iran issue cannot be dealt with in isolation. The US president should spend political capital trying to promote peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbours, in particular Syria. Damascus is currently allied with Tehran, so an Israeli-Syrian deal would dilute Iran’s regional influence and reduce external support for Hamas and Hizbollah. What is envisaged is not so much an exchange of territory for peace as territory for Syria’s realignment. This is not an argument for a “Syria first” approach – prioritising Syria over the Palestinian issue – but it is a call for a “Syria also” approach.

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, there is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Divisions on both sides and the questionable ability of the Palestinian Authority to control any newly-acquired territory make a sustainable peace agreement unlikely for now. But these factors argue not for abandoning the issue but for laying the foundation for future success by improving Palestinian security forces, strengthening its economy and halting Israeli settlement activity while continuing final status negotiations. The Arab states need to do more to bolster Palestinian moderates and convince Israelis that what is on offer is in fact a 23-state solution, in which every Arab state would recognise Israel. Progress here, and with Syria, could have the additional benefit of creating the sense in Tehran that rather than dominate the region, it could be left behind by it. This should increase Iran’s incentive to take seriously the US offer of normalised relations in exchange for normalised behaviour.

What all these initiatives have in common is a renewed emphasis on diplomacy. The US can no longer achieve its objectives without the backing of regional partners as well as China, Europe and Russia. Getting Russia to support what the US regards as its vital interests in the Middle East will require that Washington be prepared to take Russian interests elsewhere into account. An effective foreign policy requires prioritising. The US should agree to put on hold plans for missile defence in Europe if Russia demonstrates a seriousness about resolving the Iranian nuclear threat. Similarly, Nato expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine could be slowed.

Launching three simultaneous diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East will be a tall order for Mr Obama. All are worth trying and progress on one can generate pressure for progress on the others. Aside from the chance that they will succeed, the attempt itself will leave Mr Obama better placed to build support at home and abroad for necessary alternatives should they fail.

      

 

 

On taking office, U.S. President Barack Obama will face a series of critical, complex, and interrelated challenges in the Middle East demanding urgent attention: an Iraq experiencing a fragile lull in violence that is nonetheless straining the U.S. military, an Iran approaching the nuclear threshold, a faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process, weak governments in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories challenged by strong militant Islamist groups, and a U.S. position weakened by years of failure and drift. He will also discover that time is working against him.

For six years, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been dominated by Iraq. This need not, and should not, continue. The Obama administration will be able to gradually reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, limit their combat role, and increasingly shift responsibility to Iraqi forces. The drawdown will have to be executed carefully and deliberately, however, so as not to risk undoing recent progress.

The improved situation in Iraq will allow the new administration to shift its focus to Iran, where the clock is ticking on a dangerous and destabilizing nuclear program. Obama should offer direct official engagement with the Iranian government, without preconditions, along with other incentives in an attempt to turn Tehran away from developing the capacity to rapidly produce substantial amounts of nuclear-weapons-grade fuel. At the same time, he should lay the groundwork for an international effort to impose harsher sanctions on Iran if it proves unwilling to change course.

Preventive military action against Iran by either the United States or Israel is an unattractive option, given its risks and costs. But it needs to be examined carefully as a last-ditch alternative to the dangers of living with an Iranian bomb. To increase Israel’s tolerance for extended diplomatic engagement, the U.S. government should bolster Israel’s deterrent capabilities by providing an enhanced anti-ballistic-missile defense capability and a nuclear guarantee.

The U.S. president should also spend capital trying to promote peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in particular Syria. Damascus is currently allied with Tehran, and an Israeli-Syrian deal would weaken Iran’s regional influence, reduce external support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and improve the prospects for stability in Lebanon. On the Israeli-Palestinian front, there is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Although divisions on both sides and the questionable ability of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to control any newly acquired territory make a sustainable peace agreement unlikely for the moment, these factors argue not for abandoning the issue but rather for devoting substantial time and effort now to creating the conditions that would help diplomacy succeed later. What all these initiatives have in common is a renewed emphasis on diplomacy as a tool of U.S. national security policy, since the United States can no longer achieve its objectives without the backing of its regional allies as well as China, Europe, and Russia.

Some might argue that these efforts are not worth it, that the Bush administration paid too much attention to and invested too much American blood and treasure in an ill-advised attempt to transform the Middle East and that the Obama administration should focus its attention at home or elsewhere abroad. But such arguments underestimate the Middle East’s ability to force itself onto the U.S. president’s agenda regardless of other plans. Put simply, what happens in the Middle East will not stay in the Middle East. From terrorism to nuclear proliferation to energy security, managing contemporary global challenges requires managing the Middle East.

Read the full article »

      

 

 

Charlie Rose, host: President-elect Obama will inherit the most challenging foreign policy landscape in years when he takes office in January. But the global economic crisis and the attacks in India are reminders that he is already being tested. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote “The hundred days are happening now, and many of the president’s next challenges lie in the Middle East.”

Joining me now — Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He is a former United States ambassador to Israel. The two institutions have cooperated on this new book [Restoring the Balance] which is out today. It is called Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. I am pleased have both of them at this table. Welcome.

First, Mumbai. You [Richard Haass] left the day before.

Richard Haass: This Thanksgiving there is much to be thankful for.

Charlie Rose: Indeed. So, let’s just start with Mumbai first – tell me: What’s the significance? What does it say? What does it mean? What is it connected to?

Richard Haass: First, it’s a reminder that terrorism is not something you eradicate. Like disease, it is a part of our lives, and it will be a part of our lives for as long as we live them. Secondly, it’s a reminder that Pakistan or Pakistan/Afghanistan, which is really part of the greater Middle East now, is probably going to be the single toughest challenge in an inbox jammed with foreign policy challenges that Barack Obama will inherit.

And I would say what makes it particularly dangerous, and actually its consequences for the Middle East, is that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and this is probably the most dangerous bilateral relationship in the world. And it’s also then, a warning, because the last thing we want to see is Iran and Israel having the sort of relationship they have with nuclear weapons introduced, which is conceivable if Iran is allowed to progress down the path it is already on.

So this combination of terrorism, unstable governments, and nuclear weapons is quite honestly toxic, and it is the reason the Middle East will probably be the part of the world that will be the cause for more 3am phone calls than any other part of the world during [Obama’s] presidency.

Charlie Rose: So what we have here is “restoring the balance”, let’s pick up on this title first.

Martin Indyk: Well, our thought was that the most important balance that needs to be restored is between the use of force and the use of diplomacy.

I think that fits very well with the whole attitude of President-elect Obama and his Secretary-designate Clinton – that there needs to be greater emphasis on diplomatic tools, and in particular in the Middle East, greater emphasis efforts to engage. And that is something that we go into detail in – how to engage Iran, which the President-elect has a mandate to do now; how to move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward; and how also to bring Syria into the Arab-Israeli negotiations, so that there can be a comprehensive effort to achieve Arab-Israeli peace at the same time as we engage with Iran.

And to create some synergy between these three initiatives that we think can have some positive impact on the overall objective of trying to make the Middle East a more stable, peaceful, and free place. The critical thing here is that we have 3 huge diplomatic challenges, so it is going to be a very tall order for the next president.

Listen to the full show »

Learn more about the book »

      

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE NEW AMERICAN PRESIDENT, like each of his five predecessors over the past three decades, will be confronted quickly with the need to address profound U.S. concerns about Iran, including its nuclear ambitions, its involvement in terrorism and regional instability, and its repression of its own citizenry. Thanks to events of recent years, Tehran now has acquired the means to influence all of the region’s security dilemmas, and it appears unlikely that any of the Arab world’s crises, from the persistent instability in Iraq and Lebanon to security of the Persian Gulf, can be resolved without Iran’s acquiescence or assistance.

The Obama administration may be tempted to take the easy way out by offering merely new rhetoric and modest refinements to the carrot-and stick approach that has failed its five predecessors. This would be a mistake. Today, to deal effectively with a rising Iran, the United States must embark on a far deeper reevaluation of its strategy and launch a comprehensive diplomatic initiative to attempt to engage its most enduring Middle Eastern foe.

After a consideration of the range of possible policy options, including regime change, military strikes, containment, and engagement, this chapter outlines a model of engagement that acknowledges Iran’s influence while seeking to constrain and redirect it. Specifically, this approach calls for

• Implementing multitrack, delinked negotiations on each of the most critical issues at stake: the restoration of diplomatic relationships, the nuclear issue, security in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, and broader regional issues.
• Appointing a special coordinator for Iran policy, situated within the Department of State, who would coordinate the diplomatic effort.
• Normalizing low-level diplomatic relations so that the U.S. government can gain familiarity with Iranian officials and achieve a better understanding of Iranian political dynamics. American officials are currently forbidden from direct contact with their Iranian counterparts, a stipulation that further degrades the already limited capacity of the U.S. government to interpret Iran.
• Treating the Iranian state as a unitary actor rather than endeavoring to play its contending factions against one another. Iran’s internal partisan skirmishes often appear ripe for creative diplomacy, but any new approach to Iran must be grounded in the recognition that no movement on the core issues of interest to the United States will be possible without the approval of Iran’s supreme leader.
• Identifying effective mediators who can serve to build bridges between the administration and the inner circles of the supreme leader and the president of Iran.
• Revamping the recently established U.S. democracy initiative to mitigate the perception of American interference by focusing on programs that encourage people-to-people exchanges.
• Understanding that the process of engaging Iran will be protracted, arduous, and subject to shifts in Iran’s internal dynamics and regional context. To achieve and maintain momentum, the incoming administration will have to seize openings, manage crises, and navigate carefully through both the American domestic debate as well as the interests and concerns of U.S. allies.

The proposal calls for swift early steps by the Obama administration to exploit the brief but crucial window of opportunity during the “honeymoon” of a new presidency and before Iran’s own presidential jockeying for elections in June 2009 is in full swing.

The new paradigm of relations does not preclude tension or even conflict. In considering cases of Iran’s repaired relationships with other adversaries, it is clear that rapprochement was not a magic cure-all. For the Islamic Republic, rapprochement may best be understood as a way station between conflict and normal relations. However, a new framework of relations can demonstrate to Tehran that responsibility and restraint offer greater benefits to it than does radicalism. President Obama must appreciate that for the foreseeable future, Iran will remain a problem to be managed. We believe the approach detailed in the chapter provides the best option for dealing with the complexities and contradictions Iran will pose for the United States.

      

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE FORTY-FOURTH PRESIDENT will face a series of critical, complex, and interrelated challenges in the Middle East that will demand his immediate attention: an Iran apparently intent on approaching or crossing the nuclear threshold as quickly as possible; a fragile situation in Iraq that is straining the U.S. military; weak governments in Lebanon and Palestine under challenge from stronger Hezbollah and Hamas militant organizations; a faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and American influence diluted by a severely damaged reputation. The president will need to initiate multiple policies to address all these challenges but will quickly discover that time is working against him.

President Barack Obama will have to reprioritize and reorient U.S. policy toward the Middle East. For the past six years that policy has been dominated by Iraq. This need not, and should not, continue to be the case. The next president can gradually reduce the U.S. troop presence and combat role in Iraq, increasingly shifting responsibility to Iraqi forces. But because the situation is still fragile there, the drawdown should be done carefully and not so quickly or arbitrarily that it risks contributing to the undoing of progress achieved at great cost over the past two years. All this would be consistent with the accord governing U.S. troop presence being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials.

Instability generated by a too rapid withdrawal could distract the next president from the other priority initiatives he will need to take and create opportunities in Iraq for Iran and al Qaeda to exploit. However, a too slow withdrawal would leave American forces tied down in Iraq and unavailable for other priority tasks, including backing his diplomacy visà-vis Iran in particular with the credible threat of force. He will need to strike a balance.

In no way should this call for retrenchment in Iraq be interpreted as a recommendation for a more general American pullback from the region. The greater Middle East will remain vital to the United States for decades to come given its geostrategic location, its energy and financial resources, the U.S. commitment to Israel, and the possibility both for terrorism to emanate from the region and for nuclear materials and weapons to spread there. Reduced American involvement will jeopardize all these interests.

Instead, President Obama’s principal focus will need to be on Iran, because the clock is ticking on its nuclear program. He should offer direct official engagement with the Iranian government, without preconditions, along with other incentives to attempt to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to produce substantial amounts of nuclear weapons-grade fuel in a short amount of time. Simultaneously, he will need to concert an international effort to impose harsher sanctions on Iran if it rejects an outcome the United States and others can accept. The objective is simple to describe but will be difficult to achieve: to generate a suspension of Iran’s enrichment program before it builds the capacity to enrich enough uranium to provide it with this “breakout” capability.

Preventive military action, by either the United States or Israel, in the event that this diplomatic initiative fails, appears unattractive given its risks and costs.However, the option should be examined closely, both for what it could accomplish and given the dangers of living with a near or actual Iranian nuclear weapons capability. Because of Israel’s vulnerability to an Iranian nuclear first strike, its fuse will necessarily be shorter than America’s. And negotiations—as well as stepped-up sanctions— will inevitably take time to work. To increase Israel’s tolerance for a more drawn-out diplomatic engagement, President Obama should bolster Israel’s deterrent capabilities by providing a nuclear guarantee and an enhanced antiballistic missile defense capability.

A second emphasis should be on promoting peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in particular Syria, which is currently allied with Iran and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. The Syrian government is in a position to fulfill a peace agreement, and the differences between the parties appear to be bridgeable. Moreover, the potential for a strategic realignment would benefit the effort to weaken Iran’s influence in the sensitive core of the region, reduce external support for both Hezbollah and Hamas, and improve prospects for stability in Lebanon. In other words, it would give President Obama strategic leverage on Iran at the same time as he would be offering its leaders a constructive way out of their security dilemma.

President Obama should also make a serious effort from the outset to promote progress between Israel and the Palestinians. Here, though, factors related to timing appear contradictory. There is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a final peace agreement based on a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Yet deep divisions within the Palestinian leadership (not to mention divisions within Israel’s body politic), and the Palestinian Authority’s questionable ability to control territory from which Israel would withdraw, sharply reduce prospects for a sustainable peace agreement no matter what the outside effort. This dilemma does not argue for neglect, which is sure to be malign, but it does call for a devoted effort to create the conditions on the ground for more ambitious diplomacy to succeed.

What these Iranian and Arab-Israeli initiatives have in common is a renewed emphasis on diplomacy as a tool of American foreign policy—certainly more than has been the norm over the past eight years. The United States will want the backing of the world’s other powers— Russia, China, and Europe—and the partnership of America’s regional allies, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Consulting and concerting with all of these actors will also take time and patience.

Realities on the ground also call for a new approach to the promotion of reform in the region. Authoritarian regimes that are repressive and largely unresponsive to legitimate popular needs have set in motion a dynamic in which opposition has gathered in the mosque. Such polarization needs to be avoided. The answer is not early elections, especially not when parties with militias contest them, but rather a gradual, evolutionary process of democratization that emphasizes the building of civil society, the opening of political space, and the strengthening of independent institutions (including political parties, the media, and the judiciary). The parallel encouragement of a market economy can buttress this effort.

Finally, President Obama should understand that his policy toward the greater Middle East will be severely handicapped as long as the United States remains heavily dependent on the region’s hydrocarbons. U.S. consumption is helping to fuel Iran’s bid to assert its influence throughout the region; U.S. dependence also leaves this country highly vulnerable to untoward developments within the region, whether it is the ability of Iraq’s sects to get along or the ability of the Saudi government to maintain stability. The goal of the United States should be to sustain its involvement in the region but to reduce its vulnerability to it. Energy policy is foreign policy.

Some of these initiatives will take considerable time to ripen and bear fruit (rebuilding Palestinian capabilities, promoting political development in Arab countries, increasing energy security), whereas it may be possible or necessary to realize others relatively early on (assembling a new diplomatic offer to Iran backed by the threat of harsher sanctions, drawing down troops in Iraq, promoting Israeli-Syrian peace). At a minimum President Obama will need to remain conscious of the interrelated nature of regional dynamics and try to synchronize the various branches of his Middle Eastern strategy, buying time when there is no alternative while quickly exploiting opportunities or dealing with necessities when they arise.

      

 

 

In the third week of February 2008, we engaged the leading policymakers in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in detailed conversations about what they are looking for from a new American president. We also participated in the U.S.-Islamic World Forum and engaged in a series of conversations with Middle Eastern officials and civil society representatives.

While all those with whom we spoke are fascinated by the American presidential primary elections and seem to be following the results closely, few have yet focused on the possibility that a significant change in U.S. foreign policy might result from a new administration in Washington. As usual, there seems to be a significant disconnect between leaders and publics. The leaders are focused on how the next administration will deal with complex regional security issues—notably the implications of a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq, what they perceive as a slackening of American resolve to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and succession challenges in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Their publics, however, seem happy that the prospect of a new war with Iran has receded and Sunni-Shi’i tensions have subsided. The publics are hoping that a new president will uphold American values by resolving the Palestinian issue and pressing their authoritarian governments to be more open, transparent and accountable.

      

 

 

This trip occurred during the first two weeks of March 2008—a time of crisis in the Middle East. During my trip, Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip fired rockets against the Israeli cities of Sderot and Ashkelon. Issues of terrorism and security were certainly on the minds of Israelis, especially due to the terrorist attack on the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem. When I arrived in Jordan, Israel had begun conducting military operations in Gaza in response to the attacks.

In both Israel and Jordan, interviewed a range of current and former government officials, as well as several prominent academics and officials from non-governmental organizations. In both countries the predominant mood was one of frustration and gloom. Israelis felt trapped between their sense that inaction would encourage more violence and their recognition that the military and political options looked unpromising. Jordanians fretted that the Israeli reaction to the violence would strengthen the radicals politically.