What Trump could do NOW on Syria

Following this week's massacre of civilians by Syrian government forces, using specialized chemical weapons, a friend asked me what President Trump should do at this stage. To recall, President Obama averted military intervention by securing Syrian President Assad's agreement to remove all chemical weapons. While Obama should never have thrown down a red line over Syria's potential use of chemical weapons, it could have been catastrophic for the region and the United States had he backed that up when Assad indeed deployed such weapons. 

To be sure, with Russia and Iran's active support Assad has been committing mass murder and devastation against his own citizens. But until last week's indication by Trump's Secretary of State that the UnitedStates is ready for Assad to remain in office, Assad had avoided using more than off-brand chemicals such as dropping barrels of chlorine.

A friend has challenged me to suggest what Trump should do at this point, beyond empty statements. 

So here are a few ideas:

1. A statement condemning would be a good start. 

2. Countermanding Tillerson's explicit approval of Assad's legitimacy would be even better. 

3. Demand that the Russians cooperate in holding Assad accountable and removing these new stockpiles (which Russia may have itself supplied. 

4. Get ahead of the courts and formally rescind the U.S. ban on refugees from Syria who have already been exhaustively vetted -- and call on European nations to redouble their own programs.

Obama came in on the heels of George W. Bush's obliteration of Saddam's orderly dictatorship, which unleashed the cynical and destructive forces of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. That same obliteration freed Iran to pursue its goals in Syria largely unchecked. Obama made some missteps, but he did better than average with what he'd been dealt -- and at least he tried. 

Trump may still have a narrow opportunity to minimize the damage from the current situation, but by accepting Russia's dominance and legitimizing Assad, he's already taken a bad situation and made it so much worse.

Iran's sense of vulnerability casts a wide net

The Gulf expects more from the United States, and less from Iran. Surprised?

On the military side, admirals and generals want to know our plans and protocols for managing the threat from Iran, on tactical as well as strategic levels. Politically, diplomats and bloggers alike blame us for letting Mubarak fall in favor of the new Islamist Pharaoh, Mohamed Morsi. On Syria, opinion is divided on whether the United States ought to directly intervene militarily or simply provide advanced weapons to the rebels. But then maybe, judging from the current blowback on Morsi and his ascendant Muslim Brotherhood, we should be stepping in to prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad... Stability vs. democracy, or secular vs. religious autocracy.

Reflecting the outdated relevance of Wikileaks, Gulf regimes are no longer itching for a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Instead, they are acutely aware that if Iran gets lucky with just one anti-ship mine, all oil shipments will come to a standstill. The closer Iran gets to achieving "breakout" capacity, or to crossing one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ever-shifting "red lines", the more regional leaders understand that neither diplomatic nor military options promise an easy resolution. And once again, regardless of the nuclear file, Iran's ongoing opportunism is evident in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and potentially Bahrain. The regime in Tehran is as happy to take advantage of popular Arab unrest as it was to seize full control of Abu Musa from the United Arab Emirates 20 years ago (or to regain its former sovereignty, according to the Iranians).

For all their defiance and bluster, Iranians remain concerned about their own rights to security and national self-defense: The entire punitive premise of international nuclear negotiators and the sanctions backing them up leaves Iranians feeling humiliated and cornered. This is not merely posturing -- it's a genuine feeling.

I do not discount Iran's violation of international treaties and conventions on the transparency and verifiability of its nuclear program, nor its propensity to support terrorism and undermine diplomatic solutions, especially where the Israelis and Palestinians are concerned. Sure, Iran is responsible for its current dilemma. But so long as Iran feels deep down that its very sovereignty and survival are being threatened, it is unlikely to willingly give up what has become its nuclear insurance policy.

While the West cannot afford to back down, it is increasingly likely that Iran will nevertheless succeed in attaining nuclear weapons capacity within the next five years. Leveraging the existing and future sanctions and other measures, it may be possible to fashion a process and terms of reference that acknowledge and allay Iranian fears and also establish a framework for taking the centrifuges off line.

An Iran that WANTS to own nuclear weapons can potentially be deterred. An Iran that feels it NEEDS to own nuclear weapons will be truly dangerous and unpredictable. If our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran are able to address both points, we just might succeed in the short term and also open the door to a long-term process of normalization.

Benghazi worse than Watergate? GOP would know.

A terrible series of events transpired last month in Benghazi, Libya. As we all know, the U.S. Ambassador and three other U.S. personnel were killed in an organized, deliberate attack on the Consulate there.

In the days following the attack,  many questions and allegations were launched against the White House, largely by the increasingly right-wing Republican House of Representatives back in Washington and its media ally, Fox News. Why didn't President Obama immediately label the incident as a terrorist attack? Why did the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations initially suggest the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-U.S. protest march when -- as we eventually learned -- there was no protest, only the stand-alone attack? Why did the State Department not supply more security forces as had been requested by post? And so on.

While it took days for the GOP's political and media establishment to fully gear up in this very timely cause, Governor Mitt Romney was framing Benghazi as an indictment against the entire foreign policy of President Barack Obama, even as recovery operations were still underway. He was definitely ahead of the curve on using this as a political weapon.

Ironically, the Benghazi attack -- which cost us the lives of four brave Americans -- pales in comparison to unspeakably catastrophic tragedies like the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington (2,800+ dead); the 2005 Hurricane Katrina (1,800+ dead); Operation Iraqi Freedom (nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers dead). Each of these death tolls can be in large or small part attributed to incompetent and/or ideologically forced decision-making by President George W. Bush and his advisers. And, by the way, banging the war drums and beating an apologetic retreat whenever necessary has been none other than Fox News. Yet in the years that have followed, almost no one has faced any official or political consequences for any of these failures (unless receiving a Presidential Medal of Freedom counts).

And now, Fox News' own Brit Hume is feeling righteous enough to point out that "it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News, and a couple of others to do all the heaving lifting" on exposing the as yet unproven allegations of Benghazi wrongdoing and cover-up by the Obama administration.

There are definitely important lessons to be learned and applied going forward, and possibly careers to be ended. And it is never too late to start holding our government leaders accountable on national security. But if Republican politicians and journalists are going to lead the way on this, it would be nice of them to at least acknowledge the novelty, rather than acting like turning four deaths into Obama's Watergate -- or even WORSE than Watergate (and maybe Vietnam, too?) -- is not transparently political and contrived.

I don't hate Netanyahu, but I'll speak my mind.

One of my friends has expressed his sincere perception that I "really don't like" Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Here was my response:

"I like leaders who actually lead rather than play parlor games and keep giving essentially the same UN speech year after year. You've read my blog posts, where I try to explain the reasons for my disappointment. Unlike in U.S. politics, I have no dog in the fights between Likud and its flailing competition -- it hurts me to see Israel missing the boat and focusing on form over substance, especially when the stakes are so high."

Here is my more general explanation of why I criticize the elected leader of Israel and his actions:

I do want Prime Minister Netanyahu to succeed. But success for him seems to be muddling through just enough to shore up his domestic base and core of support in the United States, while kicking the can down the road -- to paraphrase Mitt Romney. For me, that's a recipe for long-term disaster. When the opportunity has presented itself once or twice over the past few years, with the certainty that my comments would be conveyed directly to the PM, I eagerly provided suggestions that I thought would advance Israel's standing with the White House and the international community. Earlier this month, I blogged against his plan to admonish the United Nations General Assembly TODAY regarding Iran -- if you're curious, please read my reasons here.

In 1988 with PM Shamir -- still keeping my thoughts to myself.

Ten years ago, I felt constrained by my professional obligations from publicizing my concerns about invading Iraq (we were busy lobbying the Bush White House at the time). I shared with a small circle of friends and colleagues my certainty that (1) invading Iraq would embolden and strengthen Iran, thereby making Israel less secure; (2) it was highly unlikely Iraq could have MORE weapons of mass destruction than it did BEFORE the decade of sustained embargoes and sanctions; and (3) even if Iraq really were building weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration was lying that it had credible evidence.

So I kept quiet back in 2002 and 2003, and just months later, publications like The New Republic were wondering how everyone could have been so wrong. I decided that -- if I could -- going forward I would be on record about my analysis and warnings. Not that my views will ever make headlines, but for my own self-respect, to give my own circle an opportunity to include my opinions in their own calculations, and perhaps to impact the politics and policy process. At the very least, my silence will not serve to empower the personal and political agendas of those with whom I disagree.

For many years, I did my best to reiterate and promote the official policies of the Israeli Government, but then I realized that so many champions of Israel -- on the right and the left -- were using the Jewish State to advance their own ideological agenda in Israel and to score partisan points in U.S. politics. When I found myself free to speak my mind, thanks to politicized personnel decisions, I decided to seize the moment for as long as I could.

Back to the original question: I don't especially like or dislike Prime Minister Netanyahu, though I would always give him my best advice with the goal of helping him make the most of whatever situation he chooses to seek for himself and for Israel. In the meantime, I will continue to speak my mind and try to listen to other views along the way.

Rushing to blame, Romney disgraces us all

The attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya have reinforced the sense of danger and uncertainty in the Middle East, and should spark a renewed -- and ideally bipartisan -- about how the United States can continue to repair its influence and effect lasting stability in this often chaotic region.

Even before we could know the extent of brutality and barbarism involved in the lynching of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- let alone all the other facts and factors involved --  the Republican Party Chairman and the Republican nominee for President were rushing to blame President Obama's "failed" policies for these outrageous assaults on the honor and person of American diplomacy.

Leading the pile-on were many of my friends from the right wing of the Jewish, pro-Israel community. Had Obama only listened to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and shown him more respect while showering Israel with unprecedented military support and security cooperation, none of this would have happened. Ironically, this came hours after the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks -- despite President George W. Bush's uncompromising and single-minded campaign against Saddam Hussein. Even more ironically, these attacks came nearly a year to the day since Israel's own ambassador to Egypt was nearly lynched by a Cairo mob -- and only saved through the personal intervention of... President Obama. What a way to say thank you.

Egypt goes South

I was holding out for Egypt, hoping against hope that the same military-backed regime that controlled the levers since 1952 would now allow some semblance of democracy -- while also honoring the 40-year alliance with the United States and peace treaty with Egypt. It is no longer possible to pretend that any of these imperatives is guaranteed, and the first is most likely unachievable for the near future.

The $4 million just paid to ransom a handful of U.S. non-profit workers -- against the $1.5 billion in aid that we send over every year -- is an imperfect fix to a ridiculous gambit by the regime. We just paid "get lost" money, and we're the ones who are supposed to get lost.

Freedom without democracy?

A new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, argues that the system is stacked in favor of the elite, regardless of which political party runs Washington.

With only five percent of the world's population, the United States nevertheless holds nearly one-quarter of all prisoners in the entire world. And yet, nearly no one ever goes to prison in America for violating the United States Constitution or crimes against the American people. That includes everything from illegal wiretapping of thousands of U.S. citizens, to the financial meltdown that engulfed our nation just over three years ago. In fact, our financial agencies are controlled by executives of Goldman Sachs and a few other major banking firms, regardless of which party controls Washington.

I've been blogging this past year about how Egypt will remain under the same military rule, regardless of whether the brave demonstrators in Cairo succeeded in getting Mubarak removed as the President (though I had hoped otherwise). Russia will continue to be run by the same security apparatus and moneyed classes as before, but this past month's popular protests will force them to scale back some of their control and possibly change one or both faces at the top. Whatever it takes...

In the United States, a previous generation mounted full-scale protests against military adventurism in Vietnam and racism at home, and truly changed the face of our land. New laws were enacted, freedoms were expanded, and public welfare enhanced for millions. 

But do we have effective and functional democracy today?

Bahrain gets blasted for the wrong offense

I have previously expressed my concerns, admittedly more privately than publicly, about Bahrain's crackdown on anti-government protesters. I think it's a bad way to promote democracy, even in a region with no functioning democracies (Iraq is notable, but hardly functioning). While many of the protesters may be motivated by legitimate grievances, Iran definitely has an interest (and at least some influence) in having these protests get out of control and destabilizing Bahrain, just a narrow Gulf away from its shores.

The latest complaint, from a prominent Shiite cleric in the Sunni-dominated Kingdom, is that Bahrain is a "fake democracy". As far as I know, Bahrain is a monarchy and does not claim to be a democracy per se, so it is neither fake nor a democracy. More than that, its track record on freedom of religion and freedom of expression has been better than most Gulf nations, though there remains much to be done.

There is currently no Shiite example of democracy of any kind, anywhere in the world. Being a Shiite should not be a crime, and I hope my more moderate friends (including my gracious hosts) among Bahrain's ruling class will yet find a way to properly balance the complicated mix of security, political and social forces at play in and around the Kingdom.  I do not mean this as a critique of Shiite political philosophy, but the non sequitur of a Shiite religious leader accusing any Gulf state of being a "fake democracy" seemed too appealing to leave alone.

Israel faces bigger threats than "Palestine"

I often hear observers lament that one party or other in a dispute is getting all worked up over a "symbol". The sad fact is, many wars have been fought over symbols, because symbols are usually important on both sides of a conflict.

Losing the United Nations vote on recognizing a Palestinian "UDI" (unilateral declaration of independence) is not Israel's biggest challenge right now.

Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Iran...

Israel seems to have fewer friends and fewer stable neighbors -- and more dangerous neighbors -- than it did a year ago.

Mission Accomplished... does Libya count?

I wasn't planning to shout from the rooftops over the success of President Obama's smart-power strategy in Libya, though I had blogged early this year that Libya was an opportunity for him. Not a confounding challenge, like Iraq or Afghanistan, or Egypt or Syria, but nevertheless an opportunity to turn a fresh page, at least back to the limited-engagement days of Clinton and Bush (remember 41?). This may not have been a slam dunk, but let's at least give the President credit for a good rebound shot.

Six months ago, back when I first posted on this, lots of Republicans seemed to be goading the President into invading Libya. The disappointment was palpable when he threw in with our NATO allies and let them do most of the work -- with no ground invasion, and with limited firepower after the first days of giving the rebels a head start. And in the end, it's been estimated that the entire Libya engagement cost Washington less than $1 billion -- no casualties, no PTSD -- and far less than the cost of one day in Iraq after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt.

Later, the Republicans' spent blood lust turned into anger that the imperial imperialist (Obama) needed to invoke the War Powers Act, even though President Bush (43) had invaded Iraq with only a vague contingency resolution from Congress, and in Libya no U.S. ground forces were committed. A few of my Republican friends have suddenly informed me they never even liked Bush's whole "democracy-building" agenda. Oh.

"Responsibility" should have consequences

Perhaps Representative Anthony Weiner really didn't "betray" his constituents, but he has said he did and he has accepted full responsibility for his actions. If he means that, then he will have to resign. There's no way to take responsibility for betraying one's constituents -- one's employers -- without resigning. 

Weiner's acts, though creepy, are far less than some actual crimes allegedly committed by other politicians, including Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) who remains in the U.S. Senate four years after showing up on the customer records of the infamous "DC Madam". That unfortunate woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, took her own life less than a year later, and Senator Vitter won reelection. Louisiana... I get it.

Referring to the Iraq War, back in 2007, President George W. Bush said, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." And yet, the only individuals who lost their jobs over Iraq were the Army General who predicted we'd need more troops than the President initially committed and some mid-level officials implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. As for the 9/11 attack on our nation, which defined the Bush Presidency as well as the 2008 candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, I know of no Bush administration official who lost his or her job as a result of failing to prevent the worst attack on U.S. soil in the last 150 years. "Mission Accomplished"... NOT.

When President Obama learned that Air Force One and military jets had been flown at low altitude over Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty for a photo op -- without coordinating with alarmed local government and law enforcement -- he fired the White House official who should have known better. Had President Bush applied the same standard to those who failed their duties on 9/11 and in the planning and prosecution of the Iraq invasion...

Representative Weiner did take some responsibility for his scandalous and inappropriate actions -- though incompletely -- and he did submit to the questions of an eager press corps on live TV. He has reportedly entered some psychiatric facility for treatment of his compulsions. His decision window is still open, even though it's wider than our typical six-hour news cycle. 

The saddest aspect to the Weiner affair, and to most of our political scandals and policy failures, is that there is no responsibility or accountability, nor any consequences, for the actions of public officials. Taking "full responsibility" has become an empty figure of speech, as "With all due respect," or "Have a nice day." I don't need a shopkeeper to mean it when telling me, "Y'all come back now." But I would like elected officials to stand behind their statements of accountability. Call me old fashioned. 

Why the Syrians are on their own

I was asked why the world is not taking more action in support of the popular uprising and basic human rights being threatened in Syria. By rights, the major powers should have stepped in the way they did in Libya, or at least call on Bashar Assad to step down (or at least revoke his medical license for systematically savaging a poor 13-year-old boy).

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Why now? Just because of what's been going on elsewhere in the region? The Assad family has put down localized uprisings before. Most Syrians may either hate the Assad regime or simply want democracy (or something else), but most people don't seem to be taking to the streets. Syria has been a brutal place for decades.

2. Everyone but the brave protesters seems to prefer Syria as it is. Even though Egypt is strategically vital, its territorial integrity was never up for grabs, while Syria -- a bit like Iraq -- has remained a precarious venture. Syria could disintegrate, in which case the region might plunge into violent anarchy.

3. So many powers are invested in Syria's status quo, moreso perhaps than with Egypt. Russia and France still retain old colonial designs on Lebanon and Syria's national life. The United States, obviously, has interests relating to Lebanon, Israel, and Iran. Though they be allies on generally good terms, Iran might use Assad's downfall to expand its role in shaping Syrian politics even more than in Lebanon, and to further streamline its pipeline of terrorists and weapons into Lebanon. Turkey fancies itself as the bridge between Europe and the Middle East, and it shares Kurd-a-phobia with Assad. 

4. Israel, of course, has relied upon its contentious yet predictable border, including Lebanon. It already lost one longtime neighbor in Hosni Mubarak, but at least there's a peace treaty locked in with U.S. financial and strategic support. Syria has no emergency brake. And if Israel ever did cut a deal with Syria, it could be a relatively straight -- if painful -- swap of Golan Heights for peace; but not if Iran steps in first.

The Syrian people have long deserved better than Bashar Assad, but they also know their predicament. Their resilience is impressive, and we can hope they succeed and that their rich intellectual and cultural heritage carries them through toward a more democratic future. But the vested interests will be vested, at least for now.

Can't the media let Bush be modest? (No.)

Once again, the "news" media seem to have no patience for real news to come their way, as if the operation to get Osama Bin Laden and its aftermath are not pressing enough. Since Tuesday, the hot subplot has been former President George W. Bush reportedly declining President Obama's invitation to join him when he visits Ground Zero on Thursday in New York.

President Bush is trying to be a gentleman and defer to the current sitting President, and the press pervert that gesture and use it to upstage President Obama's military success and his effort to provide some closure for thousands of 9/11 survivors and millions of Americans. Bravo!!

Shortly after President Obama announced the killing of Osama, George W. Bush issued a brief, magnanimous and patriotic statement praising the operation, U.S. forces, and the President. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader and former Speaker -- and one of Bush's prime adversaries on Capitol Hill -- called the former President to thank him for his leadership in the cause that culminated in Sunday's dramatic operation. Since he left the White House, Bush has avoided politics and public roles, which is why he decided against accompanying the President to Ground Zero. He did partner with Bill Clinton to help the victims of last year's devastating earthquake in Haiti, because President Obama asked him and because a million or more lives were hanging in the balance.

Do the press really expect Bush to take a victory lap around Ground Zero? Do they really think Bush is being petulant by not joining Obama on a solemn occasion?

Libya can save U.S. in Mideast

Rather than compounding the military campaigns to which President Bush originally committed us a decade ago, the intervention in Libya can become part of a broader transformation that ultimately stabilizes the region, restoring and even breaking new ground in the credibility and legitimacy of U.S. influence and power in the Middle East.

Libya seems to be a perfect fit for U.S. intervention. Despite the Bush administration's rapprochement with Libya, unlike Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Qaddafi is hardly seen as Washington's ally, so there's little of that imperialist baggage or angst. The United States is acting under a genuine coalition, including participation of Arab forces. The Arab League, and China and Russia, have stepped back from their original assent to the Libya intervention, but they were fully aware that the UN Security Council resolution was authorizing more than a simple "no fly zone".

The United States was too involved in Mubarak's fortunes to intervene in Egypt, and Bahrain is home to our Fifth Fleet and it's Arabia's new Achilles' Heel. Qaddafi has established himself as the quintessential isolated fanatic dictator, and not without merit. Also, enabling the rebel tribes to remove him may open opportunities for further mayhem, but in reality Al Qaeda has failed to manifest itself in any of the Mideast turmoil, including in Libya where Qaddafi and other critics of international intervention have revived Osam bin Laden as the poster child for status quo tyranny.

Why Iran hopes Egypt's waves hit Bahrain ASAP

[Update: Since posting the entry below, I learned that one death resulted from today's confrontations. The loss of life is tragic and my thoughts are with the people of Bahrain, but my analysis has not changed.]


Every country has restive populations with legitimate grievances, and that includes the United States. Bahrain is no exception, either. But today's demonstrations by members of the Shia majority are extremely convenient for those clinging to the status quo in Iran, barely half a tankful of gas across the Gulf from Manama.

The Bahrain police put down the protests, at the same time Iranian police were putting down a massive opposition rally in Tehran with even more violent means. Iran's subversive strategy across the Gulf -- and in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza -- raises significantly greater concern in Arab political circles than anything Ahmadinejad's regime could be developing in its declared and undeclared nuclear facilities.

The irony of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government -- lacking international legitimacy since his farcical 2009 "re-election" -- extolling the Egyptian revolution while denying the right of its own opposition to rally in solidarity with the people of Egypt is sadly unremarkable. Suppressing democracy rallies at home may be necessary for his regime, but it's not the best messaging. Enter the latest Shia protests in Bahrain, and just in time.

Mideast myths die hard, but when they do...

The USSR and its satellite states were all premised upon a common ideological myth and an interlocking security framework, so when Poland pushed back and the Berlin Wall fell, there was no stopping it. Each Mideast state has its own form of monarchy, Ba'athist or theocratic underpinning, and military coordination has been shoddy since… forever. So it won't be so easy, though some countries are already far more open economically and culturally than anything that existed behind the Iron Curtain.

Many of the region's leaders have used fears of Israeli or imperialist threats to maintain their regimes. Their opponents have used the same tools to try to discredit them and the corrupt status quo. Recent developments in Tunisia and Egypt have been relatively free of such paranoia and thought control, or at least the people have broken through it. One of the Egyptian military's first acts since shedding its golden Mask of Mubarak was to reaffirm the peace treaty with Israel.

On Mubarak, a choice between credibility or legitimacy

The Obama administration is in an awkward situation. By not clearly calling for Mubarak's rotted regime to vacate the national institutions and hand over power to a genuine transition government, the United States is rapidly losing credibility both in the region and back at home. But to step in and force an outcome could instantly undermine the legitimacy of our own global role, much as the U.S. invasion of Iraq did under George W. Bush. 

I have been blogging in recent weeks in support of democracy in Tunisia, and now in Egypt (though Tunisia already needs a booster shot). So it is with disappointment (but not yet resignation) that I note: Hosni Mubarak's status under international law has not changed since the "January 25" protests started. He has been an autocratic leader with shaky legitimacy for three decades. Cracking down on peaceful protesters and news media should carry consequences, but what if President Obama had spontaneously called last year for an orderly and immediate transition to democracy in Egypt? Did we need the Tahrir events to know he has no popular mandate? And hadn't he already scheduled elections for September 2011?

By what right in international law can the United States suddenly step in? Convenience and opportunity are incomplete responses. Waiting for massive bloodshed provides a casus belli, but that's morally indefensible. And it's already arguable that Mubarak's continued presence contradicts his claim to be a force of "stability" for his nation.

By intervening to unseat a dutiful American ally, however corrupt and despotic, the United States also risks losing credibility among dozens of allies and clients around the world, specifically those who make Mubarak look enlightened and urbane by comparison. Will America ditch them as soon as their own people rise up, or some better catch rides through town? Remember, Saddam was once our man, too.

Of course, "stepping in" does not require smart bombs and embargoes. The United States has a range of public and discreet tools at its disposable. But it will be seen as interference either way, and don't expect China to allow the United Nations Security Council to authorize any action against a kindred, undemocratic regime.

I hope the Administration finds its way to doing the right thing, and soon, regardless of the uncertain risks and definite costs. In the long run, we shall gain both credibility and legitimacy.

Why Jews should champion full funding for global U.S. assistance

The Jewish community has long believed that a large overall U.S. foreign assistance budget helps guarantee the significant piece of the pie going to the State of Israel. As it threatens drastic cuts to overseas spending, a deficit-weary Congress has reassured Israel's supporters that funds for Israel will remain the same, no matter what.

So why should Jews push now for full funding of the Administration's foreign assistance request, and risk angering the new Republican majority in the House?

For most Jews, and for the broader pro-Israel community, protecting Israel at the expense of other accounts (all of which are smaller) raises the specter of bad publicity -- literally, an embarrassment of riches. Although Israel remains an embattled outpost of democracy in the Middle East, are we ready to see urgent humanitarian crises be shortchanged while prosperous Israel continues to receive billions? One need not come at the expense of the other.

Aid to Israel is truly a bargain, as we tell our fellow Americans and Members of Congress. But so is assistance to depressed economies and trouble spots around the world. We advance democracy and trade opportunities, public health and strategic stability in dozens of countries for less than one percent of the federal budget and a fraction of what we had to spend after the fact in Iraq and Afghanistan. And trade means economic growth, and jobs here in the States.

Aside from the "PR" and pragmatic arguments, there is a broader case to be made. U.S. global leadership has been instrumental in securing the Jewish state, protecting Jews in communities abroad, and making the world a better place. As Jews, we have a special responsibility based in our history -- from Sinai all the way to the Holocaust -- to make the world a better place. 

There have always been Republicans and Democrats who questioned whether the rest of the world is America's responsibility, and there have always been leaders on both sides who said, "Yes, it is." And the same holds true today.

At least on this issue, we as Jews should stand on the side of global engagement and leadership.

Iran's nuclear threat distracts us from daily dangers

The intelligence dance on Iran continues. Last week, Israel's outgoing Mossad chief pushed back the projected date of Iran’s nuclear debut to 2015. The most recent assessment had been a year or less, but presumably the Stuxnet computer worm and a couple of well-placed motorcycle bombs have set things back a bit. 

But... 2015?

For years now, U.S. and Israeli intelligence estimates on Iran's nuclear program have alternated between imminent threat and distant possibility, just over the horizon. Part of this may reflect an honest assessment of technical, strategic and military capabilities and intentions.

Political calculations also factor into such back and forth. If "sanctions fatigue" begins to undermine support for new sanctions or enforcement of existing measures, because the assumption is Iran already has a nuclear capability or it's inevitable, then projections can be changed to show there's still time to act. If the nuclear threshold seems too distant and inconsequential, data can be repackaged to suggest greater urgency and emphasize ongoing progress.

A view from the Gulf

At the Arabs’ Table: A View from the Gulf

(A variation of this has been published in JTA and The Jerusalem Post.)

There is a conversation going on among Arab policymakers, and it’s neither all about Israel nor just Iran’s nuclear program. 

This Arab conversation is diverse and complex, counter-intuitive, on their turf, but always a two-way dialogue. One doorway into this conversation was this month's Manama Dialogue, sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and hosted warmly by the Kingdom of Bahrain. A Jewish organization with background in the Gulf and ties to the leadership in Jerusalem and Washington can contribute to this dialogue as well as draw from it.

Manama attracts key ministers from the Gulf, as well as Europe, Asia, and North America – all with a strategic interest in addressing regional security here. The unofficial nature of IISS uniquely allows for equal participation and interaction by government and military officials, policy experts, and non-governmental delegates. Where else would the Iranian Foreign Minister sit at the same table and listen to remarks by the U.S. Secretary of State.

At Friday’s opening dinner, the atmospherics were palpable. Since the center VIP table was positioned perpendicular to the dais, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was able to avoid looking at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while during and after her speech. Quite the cool customer, he sat through her remarks and the question-and-answer without ever turning his head or displaying any expression. Most important, though, is that he did sit in that ballroom, barely 50 feet from the lectern, and four seats down from the Secretary during dinner. And he had his aides taking strenuous notes.