Categories
World News

Trump Incentives for Signing Peace Accords With Israel Might Be at Threat

WASHINGTON – For Sudan, agreeing to normalize relations with Israel was the price paid for being removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

A similar diplomatic agreement with Israel sealed Morocco’s demand for the United States to recognize its sovereignty over Western Sahara.

UAE officials looking to buy clandestine F-35 fighter jets from the United States first had to sign up to the Abraham Accord, which was the result of President Trump’s campaign to promote stability between Israel and alienated or even hostile Muslim states .

Either way, the incentives the Trump administration dangled in exchange for the easing could fail – either rejected by Congress or overturned by the administration of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Not only does this jeopardize the series of regional rapprochement agreements, but it also exacerbates a worldview that the United States cannot rely on to halt the end of diplomatic deals.

The Abraham Accords, Trump’s foreign policy achievement, have either re-established or re-established Israel’s economic and political ties with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco. Officials familiar with the government’s efforts said Oman and Tunisia could be the next states to join, and warming could be extended to countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, even after Mr Trump is in January Resigned from office.

The formal relaxation of tensions between Israel and its regional neighbors is, of course, a success that former Republican and Democratic presidents have long tried to promote.

“All diplomacy is a transaction, but these transactions mix things up that shouldn’t have been mixed up,” said Robert Malley, president and chief executive officer of the International Crisis Group, which is close to Antony Blinken, of Mr. Biden’s election as secretary of state.

Mr Malley predicted that the incoming Biden administration would seek to backtrack or water down portions of the normalization agreements that contradict international norms, such as the case of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, or otherwise seek to dilute longstanding United States policies such as the F. – 35 sales to the Emirates.

Congress has also sounded the alarm on the deal.

The Senate narrowly accepted the Emirates’ purchases of stealth jets, drones and other precision weapons last week, indicating concerns over expanded arms deals for the Persian Gulf. This could be reversed if the Democrats take control of the chamber after next month’s runoff elections in Georgia. Separately, the move is being reviewed by the Biden administration to ensure the $ 23 billion sale to the UAE does not detract from Israel’s military lead in the region.

A day after the Senate vote, Republican Armed Forces Committee chairman, Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, said it was “shocking and disappointing” that the Trump administration had decided to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara and predicted it would be reversed. The United Nations, the European Union and the African Union regard Western Sahara as a disputed area.

“I am sad that the rights of the people in Western Sahara have been traded away,” Inhofe said in a statement. “The president was badly advised by his team. He could have made this deal without trading the rights of a voiceless people. “

Prime Minister Saad Eddine el-Othmani of Morocco said Tuesday that his government “didn’t want it to be an exchange”.

“We are not negotiating with the Sahara,” said Othmani in an interview with Al Jazeera. “But victory in this battle required company.”

Nowhere has the diplomatic agreement proved more delicate than in Sudan.

The State Department had already decided to remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in order to compensate victims of the 1998 bombings against American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. As part of these negotiations, the Sudanese transitional government had called for the dismissal of all other terrorism lawsuits it had faced as a result of attacks in the 27 years it was on the list.

The Foreign Ministry agreed and countered last summer with a condition of its own: Sudan begins to thaw half a century of hostilities with Israel.

However, only Congress can grant Sudan the legal peace it is striving for. For the past few months, lawmakers have been bogged down as it would deny families of the victims of September 11, 2001, to challenge their days in court.

“We always wanted all terrorists to be held accountable for what they did on September 11,” said Kristen Breitweiser, an attorney whose husband was killed in the attacks on New York, in a statement released last week during angry negotiations in the Congress was published.

Sudan insists that it is not liable for the 9/11 attacks because al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden left his sanctuary in the country five years before they were carried out. But The Congressional compromise, which officials and others close to the negotiations said have been drafted, will allow the 9/11 lawsuits to continue, potentially holding Sudan liable for billions in compensation for victims.

Representatives from the Sudanese embassy in Washington declined to comment, but previously said the country could potentially withdraw from the peace accords with Israel if it does not receive immunity from terrorism lawsuits. As the Trump administration tries to keep the deal from falling apart, an official confirmed a Bloomberg report that the United States had offered Sudan a $ 1 billion loan to settle its arrears and annual development aid of up to $ 1.5 billion. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is expected to visit Sudan, Israel and the Emirates in a high-level delegation in the region next month.

Bahrain appears to be a single exception among countries incentivized under normalization agreements with Israel, although the Foreign Ministry this week labeled Iran-linked Saraya al-Mukhtar a terrorist organization, in part because of its aim of overthrowing the tiny Sunni monarchy.

It has also raised concerns among current and former government officials and conflict analysts that the United States will identify Houthi rebels in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization in an attempt to convince Saudi Arabia to sign the agreements with Israel.

Officials close to the decision said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was inclined to use the designation to cut off Iranian support for the Houthis, who have taken control of most of Yemen, overthrowing its government and neighboring Saudi -Arabia on their five year border have attacked war. It could also ban the delivery of humanitarian aid to Yemen’s major ports, most of which are controlled by the Houthis, and exacerbate famine in one of the world’s poorest countries.

It is doubtful, however, that the very name terrorism would convince Saudi Arabia – the most powerful monarchy in the Middle East – to normalize relations with Israel. This thaw could last for years, if it happens at all, and until then it could possibly be driven more by an increasing number of young adults in the kingdom who are more concerned with jobs and economic stability at home than a generation-old conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Nikki Haley, who was Trump’s first ambassador to the United Nations, said a secret trip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made to Saudi Arabia last month to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was a bold signal of detente.

“These Arab countries want to be friends with Israel,” said Ms. Haley on Wednesday at the Israel-based DiploTech Global Summit.

Even if they disapprove of Mr. Trump’s transactional diplomacy, Mr. Biden and Mr. Blinken will be cautious about withdrawing from Israel, which is the U.S.’s strongest ally in the Middle East and has significant political influence on American evangelicals and Jewish voters.

“I think President-elect Biden will try to move on with the momentum because it is beneficial to the US and US allies and I think this will be the right thing,” said Danny Danon, who retired this year as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Alan Rappeport reported from Washington and Aida Alami from Rabat, Morocco.

Categories
World News

Biden’s greatest course for actual Mideast good points is to spend money on Trump’s Abraham Accords

Imagine President-elect Biden faced with two doors that represent the Middle East dilemma he is facing. What he chooses will color his administration and have a historical impact on the most booby-trapped region of the world.

One door is marked “Return to Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal”.

The other is called “Build On Trump’s Abraham Accord”.

The literature is littered with confusing two-door parables and allegories, from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, where the choice is between the wider or the narrower and more difficult road, to Frank R. Stockton’s 1882 short story, “The Lady, or the Tiger?” where two soundproof doors lay in front of the king’s daughter’s lover.

As with most of these stories, there are dangers in every path.

Democratic party politics and election promises suggest that President-elect Biden is swiftly moving towards a return to the nuclear deal known as the JCPOA, a signature achievement for the man who selected him as vice president. President Trump pulled out of the deal in May 2018 after calling it “the worst deal ever”.

The smarter way would be to slowly, carefully, and fearfully move towards the door of Iran and see how much has changed in the Middle East in the four years since President Obama’s departure.

The Obama deal, never blessed by Congressional votes, failed to address Iran’s regional misconduct or its development of ballistic missiles and advanced arms supplies that left negotiators for a later day.

But it is precisely these Iranian advances that were shown in the Iranian cruise missile and drone strikes on Saudi oil fields in September 2019 and the ballistic missile strikes on US military positions in Iraq on January 8, 2020 in response to the drone attack that killed the Iranian General Qasem Solemani five days earlier.

Furthermore, in the run-up to its June elections, today’s Iran is unlikely to revert to its earlier deal, in which hardliners are determined to further marginalize so-called moderates. After the Iranian leaders accumulate more enriched uranium and install more advanced centrifuges than JCPOA allows, they won’t be giving up those gains so easily.

As much as they want the economic sanctions against them to be relaxed, the Iranian hardliners also want more: compensation for everything they have lost economically in the last four years due to renewed US sanctions. What is unspoken is that they have more time each day to develop their nuclear capabilities, either as leverage for future talks or to make the outbreak of their nuclear weapons inevitable.

The November 27 assassination of the country’s best nuclear scientist in Iran, who blamed Israel and the US for the country, has further fueled tensions and requires some response. In a sign of the hardening mood in Iran, the government only today executed the dissident Iranian journalist Ruhollah Zam.

So there is no easy way to get good business. President Biden is unlikely to provide the quick relief and compensation Iran has requested. Iran is unlikely to revert to the constraints of the deal unless it gets what it wants, and until then it will not address issues outside of the existing deal that have become more pressing.

That leaves door number two.

This is the one that President-elect Biden should go through once he takes office. President-elect Biden himself has pointed out that this could be the only foreign policy achievement by Trump he wants to build on.

President-elect Biden praised the campaign deals before they were signed by leaders from Bahrain, Israel and the United Arab Emirates in the White House in September. Morocco joined the US-brokered deal with Israel this week after Sudan did so in October.

As Axios reported this week, President-elect Biden could capitalize on this Arab-Israeli dynamic of the agreements, but he would do it differently from Trump.

“He wants to use this dynamic to reflect a positive dynamic in the Israeli-Palestinian agreement,” said Dan Shapiro, the former US ambassador to Israel under Obama.

Most important is Saudi Arabia. Conventional wisdom has it that President-elect Biden, who has announced that he will reassess relations with Riyadh, will create greater distance and focus on remaining human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.

But here, too, Riyadh has a voice.

Should King Abdullah and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman act to release the high profile women’s rights activists who remain in prison, they should fix relations with Qatar to end a three-year confrontation through continued Kuwaiti moderation, and should they further liberalize relations with Israel the atmosphere will improve significantly.

The October 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government agents remains a toxic barrier, but Riyadh has the potential to dramatically change that context.

Just as the UAE used its agreement with Israel to stop Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, a Saudi deal to include the agreements under a Biden government could be linked to the two-state solution with the Palestinians.

There is a bigger reason for President-elect Biden to choose door number two, and that is the foundation for institutional and strategic change in the Middle East.

The neglected seventh paragraph of the Abrahamic Convention states: “The contracting parties are ready to join forces with the United States to develop and initiate a ‘Strategic Agenda for the Middle East’ to promote regional diplomacy, to develop trade, stability and other collaborations. ”

Add Egypt and Jordan, countries that already have peace deals with Israel, and there is a chance of a modernist, moderate coalition of countries in the Middle East that focuses on future opportunities rather than settling old points.

On this basis, one could promote the kind of economic and security institutions and integration that unleash European potential after World War II. To date, these institutions have not achieved the “Europe whole and free” that was President George HW Bush’s dream, and Russia and others stayed outside.

However, no one could argue that Europe would have been better off without partial solutions.

There is also an urgent need to provide an alternative strategic future offered by Iran, Turkey, Russia and China. Better still, if this strategic change goes hand in hand with an expansion of individual freedoms, an improvement in opportunities for young people and women and a reduction in interreligious tensions.

The more these changes bring personal and economic opportunities in the region, the more the Iranian people will want to benefit from them.

Back to the two-door position of President-elect Biden, the best way to improve his chances of finding a lasting Iranian solution could be through the back door of the Abraham Agreement.

Frederick Kempe is a best-selling author, award-winning journalist, and President and CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the United States’ most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked for the Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as a foreign correspondent, assistant editor-in-chief and senior editor for the European edition of the newspaper. His latest book – “Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth” – was a New York Times best seller and has been published in more than a dozen languages. Follow him on Twitter @FredKempe and subscribe here to Inflection Points, his view every Saturday of the top stories and trends of the past week.

More information from CNBC staff can be found here @ CNBCopinion on twitter.