The U.S. is working with allies to increase pressure on Iran leading up to a possible imposition of new sanctions over the issue of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. This news-wire report from Reuters notes that the U.S. is in the preliminary stages of drafting a new sanctions resolution:

France and the United States have both prepared informal papers outlining the kinds of punitive measures against Iran the 15-nation Security Council could approve. Senior U.S. and French officials are planning to discuss these ideas with their British and German colleagues by telephone later this week. Once the four have identified the outlines of a possible sanctions proposal, it will be put to Russia and China, which have been reluctant to punish Tehran in the past and worked hard to dilute proposed measures before they were voted on. The full six are also planning a telephone call later this week, though China has yet to confirm its participation. Once the five permanent Security Council members and Germany — often referred to as the “P5+1″ — agree on elements for a sanctions resolution, they can submit it to the full council and prepare a draft resolution to be voted on.

President Obama has emphasized his determination to pursue a diplomatic resolution to this nuclear crisis and the above makes clear that every effort is being made to provide both incentives and sanctions meant to move (or manage) this crisis towards a peaceful outcome. But what if it’s not enough to change Iran’s behavior? This analysis by Carnegie scholar Robert Kagan suggests that recent domestic instability inside Iran may provide a Plan B:

Regime change is more important than any deal the Obama administration might strike with Iran’s present government on its nuclear program. Even if Tehran were to accept the offer made last year to export some of its low-enriched uranium, this would be a modest step down a long, uncertain road. Such a minor concession is not worth abandoning the push for real change. [...] What is more likely: that Iran’s present leadership will agree to give up its nuclear program or that these leaders will be toppled? A year ago, the answer seemed obvious. [...] These probabilities have shifted since June 12. Now the odds of regime change are higher than the odds the present regime will ever agree to give up its nuclear program. With tougher sanctions, public support from Obama and other Western leaders, and programs to provide information and better communications to reformers, the possibility for change in Iran may never be better.

It’s encouraging that the situation in Iran seems to be presenting the U.S. and allies with more options, not less, and that the chances of peacefully resolving this conflict have increased.

As you know, the U.S. is currently collaborating with other Security Council countries on the question of imposing some kind of sanctions on Iran over the nuclear issue. In international affairs, sanctions are most often imposed on countries that are antagonistic, which is why this report from the Voice of American stands out as noting an exception to that rule. According to the report:

Israel reacted angrily to a threat by the United States to impose sanctions on the Jewish state.  In an American TV interview, Middle East envoy George Mitchell said the United States could withhold loan guarantees if Israel fails to advance the peace process.

It’s rare for the U.S. to impose sanctions on allies and it would be a surprising turn of events. I wonder if the U.S. will at at least be evenhanded and impose sanctions on the Palestinians as well? Those rocket attacks on Israel can’t be doing much to advance the peace process.

Photo Credit: ABC News

Update Jan. 12, 2010: US says no plan to cut Israel loan guarantees, but it’s been tried before - CSM
This report notes that the State Department has denied that the U.S. is about to impose sanctions on Israel and goes on to consider how effective sanctions have been in the past.

President Obama received his Nobel Prize today and in his acceptance speech he acknowledged the irony of a wartime president receiving the peace prize while offering no apology for escalating the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he made a rousing defense of the just war doctrine and again placed the conflict in Afghanistan in the context of the history of U.S. efforts to maintain and preserve world security:

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Yet at a time when the U.S. is fighting two wars, negotiating two nuclear crises, and dealing with a climate crisis along with a major economic recession all at the same time, is there a danger that the U.S. is becoming overextended? In “Restraining Order: For Strategic Modesty” Harvey Sapolsky, Benjamin Friedman, Eugene Gholz, and Daryl Press argue for a new strategic response to all of this, a shift away from global hyper-engagement towards a policy of restraint in the use of American power:

Restraint would offer the opportunity to reinvigorate the foundations of America’s strength. Foreign distractions, among other causes, have led the United States to neglect its transportation infrastructure, its educational system, its finances, and its technology base. If we were to restrain the global interventionism that has become our second nature since the end of World War II, we could ensure our safety while preserving our power to deal more precisely with threats that may materialize in an uncertain future. The first virtue of a restraint strategy is that it husbands American power. It acknowledges both America’s great strengths—a combination of human and physical resources unmatched in the world—and the limitations of our power, which is easily dissipated in wasteful attempts to manage global security.

They go on to argue that it’s time to call on our allies and partners to take on a greater share of the burden of our common security interests while denying that this approach amounts to a call for isolationism or pacifism. It’s certainly wise to carefully husband our resources, we should not be careless with what has taken generations to build, so I do feel this is a debate worth having. On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder if the old axiom is still true with respect to power: use it or lose it?

Photo Credit: AFP

World leaders gather in Berlin this week to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, that iconic symbol of the Cold War. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is hosting current leaders like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as past Cold Warriors George H.W. Bush and his counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev. Prominent news organizations are offering retrospectives (CNN, The New York Times) of that epic moment in 1989 when the structure of world politics changed overnight. So much as been written about the Cold War, how it ended and why it ended when it did, that I’m hesitant to offer any new synthesis here. I did, however, note this interesting personal reflection from Chancellor Merkel in her recent address to the U.S. Congress:

Angela Merkel, the first leader of reunited Germany to grow up under communist rule, has worked as chancellor to warm up ties with the United States — a country she couldn’t travel to until she was in her mid-30s. [...] Merkel is the daughter of a Protestant pastor who moved his family to the east when she was very young. She told Congress Tuesday that America “was simply unreachable to me” until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. “The wall, barbed wire and orders to shoot limited my access to the free world,” she said, adding that films and books smuggled in by relatives from the west helped form her picture of the U.S. “I was enthusiastic for the American dream — the opportunity for everyone to be successful, to become something through their own efforts,” she added. Merkel said she flew to the U.S. for the first time in 1990.

In as much as historians will debate the causes of the end of the Cold War for years to come, Merkel’s comments and personal reflections remind us that no matter what they ultimately credit as the cause, the U.S. role as a beacon of hope and a champion of freedom for those living under Communist oppression can never be underestimated.

Photo Credit: The New York Times

Foreign policy has once again returned to the headlines as President Obama continues his decision-making process on Afghanistan and Secretary of State Clinton recently completed a tour of the Middle East. I’d like to call your attention to an interesting report in today’s Washington Post that compares and contrasts the promise and performance of the Obama Administration in the area of foreign policy. I like how it focuses on the issues and gives the reader a good idea of how Obama’s extraordinary personal popularity has translated (or failed to translate) into foreign policy wins/losses for the U.S. as well as the personal decision making style and values that Obama brings to the process. The report notes that Obama’s approach has taken some getting used to for U.S. citizens as well as our allies.

I think the U.S. role in the coordinated bombing attacks in Iraq is noteworthy. As this report in The New York Times notes, the U.S. role was remarkable not because the U.S. did too much, but because U.S. troops did nothing, as per our agreement with the Iraqi government:

Insurgents struck at the heart of the Iraqi government on Wednesday in two huge and deadly bombings that exposed a new vulnerability after Americans ceded control for security here on June 30. Nearby American soldiers stood by helplessly — despite the needs of hundreds of wounded lying among the dead — waiting for a request for assistance from Iraqi officials that apparently never came.

“As much as we want to come, we have to wait to be asked now,” said an American officer who arrived at one site almost three hours after the blast and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters. At one blast site, American soldiers snapped pictures of the devastation before ducking out of the streets.

I can’t help but wonder if there will now be calls for a revision of our agreement to turnover security in the cities to Iraqi forces. If it has been shown that they are not up to the task, should we intervene? The video below from MSNBC offers an emphatic “no” to that question, while this commentary in the Guardian offers grounds for optimism that Iraqi security forces will be able to step up and meet the challenge while noting that there will necessarily have to be limits to our restraint.

Photo Credit: Times Online

This report in The New York Times offers details on President Obama’s visit with Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, today at the White House:

Mr. Obama welcomed the 81-year-old Egyptian president for his first White House visit in five years, continuing a concerted effort to improve bilateral relations that had been damaged not only by the Iraq war but also by Bush administration criticism of Egypt over matters of democracy and human rights. Mr. Mubarak responded with warmth. He said that the American president had “removed all doubts about the United States in the Muslim world,” referring to what he called Mr. Obama’s “great, fantastic” speech delivered in Cairo in June. “We are moving in the right direction” on restarting peace talks, Mr. Mubarak said.

That sounds very encouraging, but how much movement in the right direction is really going on? The report notes a few minor signs that Israel is making conciliatory efforts on the settlements issue in line with President Obama’s vision for Mideast peace. For the sake of balance and reciprocity, the following sentence should read: The Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors are also making conciliatory efforts. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.  The report notes that President Obama  has called for confidence-building measures (granting overflight rights to Israeli civilian aircraft, increasing cultural cooperation and allowing Israel to open interest sections in foreign embassies abroad) by all sides. This call has been rebuffed by Egypt and other Arab peace partners. In fact, it appears that President Obama’s Cairo speech has not had a positive impact in shaping opinion in the Arab world. This BBC News review of Arab commentary finds deep skepticism about President Obama’s efforts to promote Mideast peace:

Intensive diplomatic efforts by top US officials in the Middle East this week failed to convince Arab commentators that Washington really wants to put pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of Jewish settlements. Most writers pointed out that the talks the US peace envoy George Mitchell, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Jim Jones had in the region, including in Israel, Syria and Egypt, did not achieve the declared “good progress” towards peace.

So while I’m looking for signs that Obama’s meeting with Mubarak today will inspire Egyptian leadership to rally concrete steps for peace in the region, I’m not optimistic. What more can the U.S. do to move all parties closer to the elusive goal of Mideast peace?

Photo Credit: The New York Times

As you know, the U.S. has refused to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and has made statements officially supporting the territorial integrity of Georgia after last year’s war with Russia. The news that Russia will be building up a military presence there is sure to prompt an American reaction. According to this report in The Washington Post:

Speaking on the anniversary of his nation’s victory over Georgia in a five-day war last year, Putin said the Kremlin planned to spend nearly $500 million to build a base in the separatist enclave and reinforce its de facto border with Georgia. [...] His remarks and appearance in Abkhazia underscored Russia’s growing foothold in what once was Georgian territory and highlighted the sharp differences that remain between Moscow and Washington despite the Obama administration’s efforts to “reset” bilateral relations.

But what kind of reaction can we expect from the Obama Administration? This analysis from Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, examines Vice-President Biden’s visit to to Ukraine and Georgia last month for clues on the U.S. relationship to the region and suggests to me that something less than a strong response is likely:

In a speech before the Georgian parliament, Biden correctly rejected Russia’s claims to a 19th-century-style sphere of influence. He delivered a message that the U.S. is seeking a free, secure, democratic, and united Georgia. Yet again, he fell short of operational details. Biden’s call to the world not to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is the minimum Washington can do, yet the Vice President rejected any “physical security guarantees” to Georgia in case of a Russian attack. Nor did he articulate any concrete roadmap intended to restore Georgia’s sovereignty and hold Moscow to its commitments to the Medvedev-Sarkozy accords of August 2008, which call for the restoration of the status quo ante along Georgia’s borders.

Cohen outlines four specific steps the U.S. could take to reassure allies in the region while maintaining good relations with Russia. As much as they all make sense, I was struck more by his comment that Biden’s visit in itself, rather than having Obama visit, sent a signal stronger than any speech that the U.S. was distancing itself from the region. Could it be that the U.S. need for Russian strategic cooperation in other areas of the world (Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear arms treaties) will prompt us to accept the de facto independence of the former Georgian territories?

Photo Credit: Gulf Times

President Obama is in Mexico today attending what’s been called the “Three Amigos” Summit. The mainstream media is billing this summit as a chance for Obama to meet with his Mexican and Canadian counterparts to discuss trade, migration, swine flu, energy, the environment and joint efforts to counter rising drug violence. For a nice overview of this summit I recommend this Q&A from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This is part of their Critical Questions series highlighting various international topics on the agenda. Other topics in the series examine energy and climate change at the summit and the economic issues faced by the three leaders.

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

President Obama is joining the leaders of allied countries in the annual G8 Summit, this year hosted by Italy. The G8 is not a formal alliance, it was not founded by a treaty and it does not have a permanent headquarters. It’s merely an informal gathering to discuss major international issues and try to chart a coordinated path amid the storms of economic and political turmoil that beset world affairs. Although initially focused exclusively on economic policy the agenda now includes such contemporary issues as nuclear nonproliferation, terrorism, hunger, and global warming. This report in The New York Times highlights many of the new issues being discussed in Italy, while this report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace takes us back to the beginning and examines how well the G8 is responding to the global economic crisis. Can the G8 really do it all? The one issue that has been neglected is reform of the group itself. Since the U.S. was a founding member of the group, perhaps it will fall to the U.S. to draft a plan to expand the membership and scope of the G8 to meet the needs of the 21st Century.

Photo Credit: CEIP