THE MIDDLE EAST:PERSPECTIVES AND

PROSPECTS

SUMMARY OF A ROUNDTABLE(Including Policy Recommendations)

HELD IN

NEW YORK CITYMarch 29, 2007

Our MissionThe National Committee on American Foreign Policy wasfounded in 1974 by Professor Hans J. Morgenthau andothers. It is a nonprofit activist organization dedicated tothe resolution of conflicts that threaten U.S. interests.Toward that end, the National Committee identifies,articulates, and helps advance American foreign policyinterests from a nonpartisan perspective within theframework of political realism.

American foreign policy interests include

preserving and strengthening national security;

supporting countries committed to the values and the practice of political, religious, andcultural pluralism;

improving U.S. relations with the developed and developing worlds;

advancing human rights;

encouraging realistic arms-control agreements;

curbing the proliferation of nuclear and other unconventional weapons;

promoting an open and global economy.

Believing that an informed public is vital to a democraticsociety, the National Committee offers educationalprograms that address security challenges facing theUnited States and publishes a variety of publications,including its bimonthly journal, American Foreign PolicyInterests, that present keen analyses of all aspects ofAmerican foreign policy.

?Q

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Overview: The Dynamic in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . .5

The Conflict from a Regional Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

The Conflict from a Global Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Prospects for the Middle East from a Variety of Perspectives:Revisiting the Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

NCAFP Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Attendees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

– 1 –

– 2 –

DedicationWith admiration, respect, and gratitude to

Ambassador Fereydoun Hoveyda,the originator and director of the NCAFP’s project

The Middle East: Islamic Law and Peace

j–––––––––v–––––––––J

FOREWORD

The March 29, 2007, roundtable (“The Middle East:Perspectives and Prospects”), the first held on theMiddle East since the death of Ambassador

Fereydoun Hoveyda, the director of the NationalCommittee on American Foreign Policy’s (NCAFP’s) MiddleEast project, was as spirited as it was informative. In theircommitment to deliver unvarnished analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 2006 war in Lebanon, Iran’sapparent quest to obtain nuclear weapons, the war in Iraq,the state of human rights in various states of the MiddleEast, and the stability of dictatorial regimes in the region,the presenters paid fitting tribute to the project’s founderand director, Ambassador Hoveyda, to whom the roundtablewas dedicated. So did other attendees whose provocativequestions unleashed a series of debates that focused on theturbulence of the region.

Fereydoun Hoveyda was a champion of telling the truth.Despite initial and severe criticism of his analysis of eventsin the Middle East, he maintained that the medieval mind-set of Arab militant Islamic fundamentalists wasresponsible for their actions. Fortunately, he lived longenough to know that his concept had been adopted by otherexperts in the field.

This roundtable, like its predecessors, could not have beenheld without the generous support of Mutual of Americaand its chairman, president, and CEO, Mr. Thomas J.Moran; Mrs. Sheila Johnson Robbins; Mrs. EugenieFromer; and Kenneth J. Bialkin, Esq. I thank them fortheir unstinting support for a project that is at theepicenter of world peace.

I also thank Amir Taheri who has agreed to become a seniorfellow of the National Committee on American ForeignPolicy, a position that will enable him to participate in futureroundtables on the Middle East, including the next one thatwill be held in the near future on the significance of thegeopolitical transformation of the region.

– 3 –

– 4 –

The policy recommendations recapitulated in this bookletare those alone of the National Committee on AmericanForeign Policy.

George D. Schwab, PresidentNational Committee on American Foreign Policy

INTRODUCTION

From the moment it began to the moment it ended, theroundtable held on March 29 proved to be one of themost provocative and freewheeling of any that the

NCAFP has held during the past seven years to illuminatethis tumultuous region of the world. In essence, the diversecomments voiced by the speakers and observers alikecannot be attributed exclusively to the fact that they werenot for attribution. They also reflected the perception thatfew areas of the world arouse more passion anddisagreement than the Middle East. The format tacitlyadopted at the March 29 roundtable encouraged a range ofrelated questions raised by observers and answers thatfrequently gave the speaker the opportunity not only toanswer the overarching question but also to anticipate andanswer supplementary questions as well. In effect, eachround of questions was transformed into an impromptudialogue or debate, pointing to the conclusion that thespeakers and the observers possessed a number of varyingperspectives about the Middle East that would not bereconciled that day.

Overview: The Dynamic in the Middle EastAt last year’s roundtable, the speakers maintained, it wasclear that the status quo in the region had changed sincethe end of the cold war, but it was not yet apparent whowould shape the change. After Paul Bremer assumed therole of American proconsul in Iraq and governed as if hewere the sole authority in the country, the Islamic Republicof Iran (IRI) challenged the United States for primacy inthe region. Doubtful that U.S. staying power in Iraq wouldsurvive the end of the Bush administration and unwillingto accept the consequences of the grab for power by non-Arab, Shiite dominated Iran in a region whose Arabpopulation is largely Sunni, the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC), the six petro-monarchies in the Persian Gulf,convinced Egypt and Jordan to join them in forming theGroup of Eight to formulate a plan that they hoped wouldbe adopted at a meeting of the 22-member Arab Leagueconvened to confront the waning of American power in the

– 5 –

– 6 –

region, the rise of the IRI, religious disputes and sectarianconflicts between the Shiites and the Sunni, and the crisisof legitimacy that all Arab states face.

The speaker stated that because the IRI had made itspossession of plutonium and enriched uranium andfacilities that can be used to produce nuclear weapons abadge of sovereignty, abandoning its nuclear ambitionsunder the threat of force could result in widespreadnationalist reaction and might culminate in the ejectionfrom power of the radical President Ahmadinejad and hiscohorts. Accordingly, the speaker predicted that theIranian government would not do what its adversariesexpect—compromise in order to avoid the imposition of awide range of harsh sanctions by the United NationsSecurity Council. No one doubts that the issue of a nucleararmed IRI remains of great concern to its Arab neighborsas well as to the United States, Russia, China, theEuropean Union, the United Nations, and other states andinternational organizations.

Turning to Lebanon, the speaker explained the importanceof the second smallest Arab country in the Middle East. Itserves as a balancer in that volatile region of the world.Identifying the factors that have led this small state to playsuch a prominent role in the Middle East, the speakerenumerated the many groups from Shiite Muslims toMaronite Christians that comprise its population,neighboring countries from Syria to Iran that are vying tocontrol it, and countries and regional organizations fromthe United States to Russia to China to the EuropeanUnion and the United Nations that are trying to influenceit. The outcome in Lebanon, the speaker asserted, willconstitute a win/lose situation.

According to the speaker, the gloom in Israel over theIsraeli-Palestinian situation has been partly imported fromthe United States. The atmosphere alone could account forIsrael’s reaction to the Saudi peace proposal.

In Iraq, the only question, the speaker asserted, is who isgoing to win.

The Conflict from a Regional PerspectiveThe next speaker focused first on the Arab peace plan,describing it in the same terms that King Abdullah ofJordan is said to have used to characterize it to PresidentBush: the collective recognition of Israel by the Arab statesin return for Israel’s willingness to negotiate with thePalestinians a final status agreement involving security,refugees, Jerusalem, and borders.

The speaker expressed the judgment that the Arab states’seizure of the initiative can be considered a good thingbecause it undercuts the momentum that had been buildingrapidly in favor of Hezbollah since war erupted in Lebanonlast summer. It can be argued that the proposal representsthe Arab decision not to let the radicals take over the MiddleEast. Although the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas(Abu Mazen), has declared that he is willing to negotiatesuch an agreement with the Israelis, the Israelis appear tohave doubts about his power and credibility among thePalestinians. Moreover, the speaker asserted, it appearsthat Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has decided thatshe will play a role in bringing both sides together in a seriesof talks designed to illuminate the parameters of a definitiveagreement. In the speaker’s judgment, the cost to be paid forthe further radicalization of the Middle East and the Islamicworld is very high. It should be borne by all of the partiesresponsible for the situation—Israel, the Arabs, theMuslims, and the United States, which is universallyperceived to be Israel’s protector.

The speaker discussed the importance of incorporatingstrong sanctions into the draft resolution that was presentedto the Security Council by Russia, China, France, Germany,the United Kingdom, and the United States in response tothe steps that Iran is taking to develop a nuclear weaponscapability by enriching uranium in its own facilities on itsown territory and concluded that the prospect of thosesanctions might have caused some apprehension among theIRI leaders. However, it is unlikely that the IRI willrelinquish its nuclear resources or stop supplying weaponsthroughout the region, including those shipped to Syria forHezbollah and to the Islamic radicals in Iraq and elsewhere

– 7 –

– 8 –

in the Middle East. The jury is still out on whether SecurityCouncil sanctions will succeed in preventing Iran fromacquiring nuclear weapons and from acting out andachieving its grand ambitions in the region.

The speaker voiced reservations about the meeting thatwas held about a month ago. It was convened by Iraq inorder to discuss with its neighbors, especially Iran andSyria and members of the Arab League, as well asinterested parties, including the United States, the effortsthey were willing to undertake to stabilize Iraq. Declaringthat engaging in discussions with Iran and Syria was notnecessarily the key to prevailing on them to change apolicy designed to promote the Islamist radicalization ofIraq and thus its destabilization, the speaker yielded toanother speaker who was eager to relate information aboutthe all-inclusive meeting. That speaker said that the Iraqiinitiated meeting was endorsed by the United Stateswhose ambassador attended. So did permanent membersof the Security Council, the Arab League, the Organizationof the Islamic Conference (OIC), Iran, and Syria. Anagreement was reached to stop the flow of fighters andarms to Iraq. In fact, Iran closed a portion of its borderostensibly to symbolize its intention to implement theagreement. According to the speaker, the results of themeeting appear to be promising.

The second speaker resumed discussing the challenges thatface the Middle East. In voicing the paradoxical conclusionthat by insisting on an exit strategy and a timetable for thewithdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the Democratswere helping the Bush administration to make the pointthat stabilizing Iraq can no longer be considered anexclusive U.S. responsibility, the speaker focused on thecomplexity of the situation in Iraq. The fear instilled by theprospect that the proposal might be implemented waspalpable and could prove to be the galvanizing force thatmotivates other states in the region to act effectively and inunison to bring stability to Iraq.

In turning to Lebanon, the speaker voiced agreement thatthe struggle will culminate in a win/lose situation for

several reasons: The conflict involves the head ofgovernment versus the head of an Islamic militant group—that is, a state versus a militia--and moderation versusradicalism. In the speaker’s judgment, the internationalcommunity has shown its support for Lebanon by endorsingthe UN’s establishment of a tribunal to investigate politicalassassinations in the country. After stating that the lives ofthis generation and future generations will be served wellby encouraging the Israelis and the Palestinians to enterinto a settlement now, the speaker dismissed the idea thatGeorge W. Bush’s waning incumbency will or should hinderhim from playing a prominent role in foreign policymaking.

The Conflict from a Global PerspectiveA speaker emphasized the global perspective that can begleaned from analyzing the challenges facing the MiddleEast, asserting that the position that the United States hastaken toward terrorism is logical and consistent. The threatis global, and the country responded to the 9/11 attacks inkind. The speaker maintained that the incidence ofradicalization throughout the world and the rapid rise ofanti-Americanism are realistic reactions to the U.S.counteractions. In effect, they constitute the price that theUnited States had to pay for responding the way it did to theattacks launched by its enemies. In essence, its response laidthe foundation for the implementation of a realistic foreignpolicy in the post-9/11 world.

Nationalism as a Global Strategy to Advanced TotalitarianismThe speaker declared that of the many radical plans thathave been devised for the Middle East, four matter. First isthe jihadist fantasy of a caliphate utopia. In the speaker’sjudgment, although it is the most radical and talked aboutplan, it is not the most important. Nor is the second radicalplan—the Wahhabi—the messianic nationalist approach toIslam propagated by Saudi Arabia’s reigning monarchy. Thedesignation of most important belongs not to a plan or plansformulated by a religious group or groups but to nationalistmovements that use radical Islam to disguise theirtotalitarian bent. The individual states that are committedto advancing the supposed supremacy of their societies,cultures, and ways of life are using the typical vehicle of

– 9 –

– 10 –

nationalism, the nation-state, in order to achieve overalldominance, but in adopting an all-encompassing ideology, asthe speaker suggested, they have chosen to pursue a causethat can only be called totalitarian and imperialist, whetherthe objects of their domination are coreligionists or not. Thespeaker singled out what seems to be the comparativelymilder form of Islam that certain radical groups in Turkey,Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia propagate. In contrast isthe Iranian form disguised in the garb of radical Islamism.In reality, the speaker asserted, it is unalloyed nationalismthat seeks to impose its totalitarian will throughout theworld. In essence, as Wahhabi radicalism is about SaudiArabia, the expressed radical Islamism that is said toprevail in Iran is about Iran. According to the speaker,however, the Saudi commitment is different from that ofIran. The Saudis care about Islam. Like Hezbollah andHamas, the speaker asserted, the regime in Iran is acamouflaged radical Islamist movement that usesnationalism to carry out its hegemonist agenda.

The speaker explained why it is important to develop anddiscuss a typology of extreme radicalism: It would enableanalysts and policymakers to differentiate among variousforms and formulate ways to deal with them individuallyand perhaps collectively. So too is it important to constructa typology of moderate Islamism. That may be beyond thescope of this roundtable, the speaker remarked, but itshould be considered eventually, for not all moderate formsare equal and consequential to the same extent.

Issues That Illuminate Radicalism In the speaker’s judgment, the Palestinian issue, whichunderscores the experience of the Palestinian people, is notthe key to unlocking radicalism in the Middle East. Nor isthe supposed lack of legitimacy of Arab leaders. A crisis ofleadership, not legitimacy, is what bedevils the Middle Easttoday, the speaker asserted. Similarly the Sunni-Shiitedivide is overstated. Qatar was cited as a state that is farmore Wahhabi than Saudi Arabia. In fact, it is 100 percentWahhabi. Its commitment to Wahhabism, which hasgenerated competition with Saudi Arabia, is manifest inQatar’s alliance with Hezbollah in Lebanon. That

association was formed to check Saudi influence there. Theend result of the competitive drive of each Wahhabi regimeto achieve predominance undermines the notions of Sunnisolidarity and of Sunni-Shiite conflict. This observationsparked comment from an observer who sought clarificationof his understanding that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar areSunni Arab states. The speaker explained that he cited theexample only to underscore his contention that Sunni versusShiite is not a simple one-plus-one-equals-two equation.

The Palestinian IssueAn observer asked why no one questions the suffering ofthe Palestinian people. In his judgment, their inability toform a government, to choose leaders, and to sustain amovement contradicts their status as the most educated,most literate, most able Arabs in the region. Why, heasked, should anyone assume responsibility for givingthem a state when they have done little to demonstratetheir ability to govern themselves. One speakermaintained that the Palestinians did at the time have aunity government and that the Arab initiative wasunveiled only after the unity government had beenestablished; that the agreement obligates Hamas torecognize Israel, and that the recognition of Israel is onlyone element of a solution. Maintaining that resolving thePalestinian issue was only one aspect of defeating radicalIslamism, the speaker concluded that failing to solve theproblem bears a high price.

The observer who raised the question reasserted hisdisagreement with the speaker by maintaining that theoccupation occurred as a direct result of the refusal of theArabs to accept the Jewish state. He expressed his reluctanceto engage in a debate on the subject but reserved the right torevisit it later. Another speaker joined the discussion andafter testifying to the common humanity of all of the people ofthe Middle East asserted that the Palestinian issue could beaddressed effectively by asking why chaos exists there. Inessence, the issue should be treated as a humanitarian onethat recognizes the injustice of the situation. The speakerreiterated his contention that the Palestinian issue is not thecore of the challenges posed by the Middle East. Nevertheless,

– 11 –

– 12 –

it is a moral issue that needs to be addressed.

In framing a related question, an observer said that thePalestinians had achieved the unique distinction of actingas if they were the heads of a failed state even though theyhave not been able to create a state. His question sought toelicit recommendations about how the Palestinians can beempowered to choose constructive, positive leadership thatwill enable them to pursue coexistence with their Israelineighbors and create a viable, productive, and modernPalestinian state existing side by side with Israel.

A speaker again raised concern about turning theconference into an exclusive discussion of the Palestinianissue. Maintaining that it is unacceptable to deny theinjustice of the issue, the speaker told the observer that itmakes no sense to reject the Arab peace plan before itsterms are made public. The observer asserted that he wasreferring to the peace plan submitted by King Abdullah ofSaudi Arabia, which was presented recently for the secondtime. He termed it completely unacceptable. Again thespeaker voiced reluctance to turn the roundtable into adiscussion of one issue alone. One of the hosts voiced hisagreement with the speaker. The speaker in turn, incharacterizing as moderate the plan that had beenpresented, recommended that the Israelis submit a peaceproposal of their own that could be vetted by both sides.

Finally the speaker whose initial comments sparked thedebate answered his own question. He stated that the reasonthere is so much chaos in the Palestinian territories—whythe semblance of a failed state emerged in Palestine beforeone was even created—is the failure to create and maintainthe institutions necessary for a state to exist and function.Acceptance of this diagnosis, which would involve a historicalinvestigation of responsibility that is beyond the scope of theroundtable, would be based on the realization thatsustainable institutions must be built and stakeholders mustbe created through economic initiatives.

Another speaker expressed the judgment that thePalestinian issue is a relatively minor issue that needs to be

put into a larger perspective. From that perspective, thespeaker asserted that since the Second World War, 116 warshave been fought on all continents, yielding both winners,who imposed a new status quo, and losers, who might havethought about revenge but accepted the reality of defeat.The one exception is the Arab-Israeli wars that werebrought to the UN for resolution, turning both thecombatants and the international organization into aménage a trois. That, the speaker claimed, is the core of theproblem. In effect, Palestine became a cause, an abstraction,not a solvable problem involving concrete issues of land,borders, water, citizenship, and an exchange of populations.

In order to perpetuate the issue as a cause, the Arab stateskept the Palestinians in refugee camps, refusing to grantthem living space and citizenship. Now 26 years after thesame ideas for a peace plan were first submitted, the Arabstates are presenting them again. The speaker’s prescription:Israel should impose a solution based on its conception ofwhere its territory begins and ends. Moreover, Israel and theArab states should be left alone to work out a solution.

A speaker returned to his presentation by remindingeveryone that such broad terms as “the Israelis” and “thePalestinians” require definition. How, for example, shouldthe Palestinians of Israel be classified? Then the speakermentioned the conflicts in Kashmir, Chechnya, and Colombiaas situations that involve radical Islamists outside theMiddle East. By anyone’s assessment, these conflicts poseserious challenges to the world. The issue of Islamism, thespeaker maintained, is not confined to the Middle East or tothe Palestinian issue. In its global setting, Islamism opposesdemocracy and free markets and supports regimentation andcontrolled economies. Islamism transcends national andregional boundaries and affects the outcome of issues thatare of vital concern to everyone in the world.

An observer asked the same question that was posed at thefirst NCAFP roundtable on the Middle East. Thatgathering, held seven years ago, consisted only of Muslimspeakers and other participants. They were asked byNCAFP interlocutors: Would the Arab world ever accept a

– 13 –

– 14 –

non-Muslim sovereignty in its midst on territory that itthinks is Arab soil? The answer was no. A speaker refutedthe answer by citing the Christian-Muslim sharing ofpolitical power in Lebanon as well as the admission of thatmultireligious state into the Arab League. The speakerobserved that with the decline of Arab nationalism,Islamism has become the ideological fuel of the MiddleEast. Moreover, the Iranian kind of nationalist Islamism towhich the speaker initially referred accepts the nation-state of Iran, whereas the Arab kind of radicalism thattoday is camouflaged as Islamism rejects the nation-statesystem. The speaker suggested that that rejection could beovercome by Arab states not acting as if they were membersof a monolithic entity but behaving as if they were membersof several nation-states that possess a sense of commonalityand belonging based on a cultural continuum. There is, thespeaker contended, a common Arab culture that does notencompass the fantasy of Arab nationalism that is said tobe destined to create a single, homogenous state. Thespeaker expressed the belief that if a cultural dynamic werecreated, Arabs, like Israelis, would accept it; for it wouldoffer no threat to anyone.

A speaker pointed to Iran as the motivating force that drovethe Saudis to assume the role of peacemakers. Concern aboutIran’s ambitions in the region apparently motivated them tosend a high-ranking Saudi official to visit Israel recently.This speaker disagreed with the preceding speaker whorecommended that Israel and the Arabs be left alone to settletheir differences but agreed that it is Israel’s responsibility todemarcate its territory and to argue effectively for theimplementation of its plan for peace. Doing so may bepropitious inasmuch as the Arabs have expressed awillingness to accept the 1967 borders, in effect signalingtheir belated recognition of their defeat in the 1967 war.

After a break, the roundtable resumed the question-and-answer portion of the discussion. An observer asked aspeaker to predict the strength of the Islamic lobby in theUnited States 20 years from now. The speaker replied that20 years is a very long time in which many unforeseendevelopments could occur, adding that there is not one

monolithic Islamic lobby in the United States today. Thespeaker recommended a book on Islam written by a WallStreet Journal reporter who contends that Islam does notexist as an organized religion in the United States. Thespeaker expressed full confidence in the American system’sability to Americanize Muslims living in the country in thesame way it Americanized Anabaptists and members ofother religious groups considered zealous in their approachto proselytizing.

An observer asked a speaker to explain why theroundtable cannot seem to move beyond the Arab-Israeliconflict when every participant seems to agree that theissue is not of overriding importance. The speakerdisagreed with that ranking by replying that it isimportant and of concern if only because the problem hasnot been resolved. Also, it is a matter that stirs emotionsthat the Islamists seek to inflame as part of their strategyof radicalizing the Middle East. Another speaker addedthat the conflict is especially charged with emotionalintensity because it reminds the Arabs of colonialism andsubjugation and the people of the West of the Holocaust.

Iran as a Nation-State and as a RevolutionAn observer named a number of states in the region thatpossess nuclear weapons and asked the speakers to discusswhy Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons wouldconstitute a greater danger than they pose to the stabilityof the region. One speaker replied that all of the states thatthe participant identified except Iran are part ofinternational structures designed to control and constraintheir nuclear resources. Iraq under Saddam Hussein didnot operate under similar restrictions; nor does Iran. Thespeaker again asserted that the regime in Iran is using thenuclear issue to appeal to the nationalist fervor of middle-class, educated Iranians who oppose both the regime’stotalitarian ways as well as measures taken to circumscribeits sovereignty. The behavior of the Iranian president isunderstandable, another speaker remarked, once it isunderstood that he is speaking for a revolution, not anation-state. A revolution possessing nuclear weapons is adaunting prospect, which is why Security Council

– 15 –

– 16 –

resolutions have targeted Iran as a revolution, not as anation-state, another speaker stated.

Both speakers emphasized Iran’s duality as a nation-stateand as a revolution—two roles that frequently clash witheach other. One speaker declared that Iran should completeits revolutionary stage as promptly as possible and returnto the world of nation-states where it can pursue itsnational interests in the region, including subjecting itsnuclear resources to international structures designed toregulate them, and develop normal relations with theUnited States and its Arab neighbors. Regime change, thespeaker suggested, may be necessary to bring about such atransformation. To facilitate the process, another speakersuggested the implementation of low-intensity warfaresimilar to that employed by the Ahmadinejad'sadministration in Iraq and Lebanon among other places.

An observer asked the speaker who had asserted that theSunni-Shiite conflict is exaggerated even in the emergingShiite crescent to explain why. The speaker noted that theShiite crescent in question contains Sunni Hamas.According to the speaker, competition is taking placebetween the Saudi monarchy and the rulers of the IRI. Thatcompetition, played out by proxies, reveals two layers ofconflict: One is the rivalry, not enmity, between the Saudimonarchy and the Iranian rulers. The other is enmitybetween the United States and Iran. Elaborating further onhis statement, the preceding speaker disagreed with thespeaker who contended that it would be in Iran’s bestinterests to ally itself with Israel and Turkey. On thecontrary, this speaker asserted, national interests precludeideological coloration. As rivals, both Iran and Saudi Arabiain a globalized world should compete against each other inorder to achieve socioeconomic growth and promote Iranianand Saudi interests at the same time. The speaker did notrefute the notion that discord marks the relationshipbetween the Shiites and the Sunni but noted that theirdealings with each other have always reflected bigotry andprejudice. In the speaker’s judgment, the violence in Iraqreflects the effort by jihadists and ex-Baathists to imposetheir radical agendas.

External Ambitions Evident in the Region The next discussion was sparked by an observer who askedabout the interests of China and Russia in the area. Aspeaker replied that the Middle East, unlike other regions ofthe world, lacks institutional structures of stability such asthe European Union or NAFTA, and in seeking to identifythe limited range of international relationships that exist inthe Middle East, the speaker underscored that deficiency.

What does exist in the area, the speaker explained, arerelationships centered on the region’s vital naturalresources. The speaker cited the new Iraqi oil law thatwould allow China, Russia, France, and other countries toinvest in developing 83 percent of Iraq’s oil resources—most of them untapped—giving each participant aconcrete interest in stabilizing the area. The speakermentioned other prospects. One may eventually involve agas pipeline linking Iran to India via Pakistan. If itmaterializes, it will be a means of bridging the dividebetween the contentious countries.

The second interesting development that may lead to thecreation of a structure for stability in the Middle East is therole that NATO is playing in the region. Other than Israel, thejoint chiefs of staff of the six GCC members—Arab states all—have agreed to hold annual joint conversations with NATOand conduct joint maneuvers with its forces. The speakerestimated that within the next two years 18 Arab statesmight well have established ties of some kind with NATO.

Not to be discounted is the role of the World TradeOrganization (WTO). Seven Arab member states arealready in WTO, and applications for membership from fiveothers are pending. Also, of interest to the Middle Easternstates involved is the Euro-Mediterranean Initiative—aproject proposed by the European Union.

All of these institutions offer some prospects for providingstructures for stability in the Middle East.

In contrast, the speaker asserted, some Europeans,including Russian President Vladimir Putin, maintain

– 17 –

– 18 –

that if the United States continues to act as if the MiddleEast is its exclusive preserve, they will not becomeinvolved in trying to stabilize the region. Theyacknowledge and even support the U.S. leadership role inthe region but maintain that other states should beencouraged to participate also. The speaker expressed theopinion that the United States should make it easier forSaudi Arabia to exercise geopolitical influence in theregion by facilitating its membership in the WTO.

A speaker expressed optimism about prospects for theMiddle East. In the struggle between radical Islamism anddemocracy, the speaker said, the Islamic forces have failedin their quest to rout the advocates of democracythroughout the region.

OilAn observer asked the speakers to comment about the pricethat might eventually be paid because of the current failureof Iraq and Iran, but not Saudi Arabia, to drill for oil. Theincreases in GDP achieved by both India and China testify tothe increasing need for this natural resource and theconsequences that could result from its shortage.

A speaker maintained that the vast reserves of oilpossessed by Iraq and Iran, not to mention Saudi Arabia,could ensure enough supplies of this vital resource for 35years. Meanwhile some Arab states such as Kuwait haveestablished future funds, which have enabled theirgovernments to invest throughout the world. The revenuesfrom such investments will undoubtedly constitute assetsused in the development of the Middle East.

Prospects for the Middle East from a Variety ofPerspectives: Revisiting the IssuesTransforming Two Peace Plans into OneElaborating on the sense of optimism expressed momentsearlier, the speaker focused on the Saudi peace plan thatappears slated to be approved when it is submitted to aspecial summit of the Organization of the IslamicConference composed of 57 states that contain a Muslimmajority. Its seven-member Steering Committee has

approved the plan already. In the speaker’s judgment, theproposal will succeed only if Israel, which won the Arab-Israeli wars, presents a counterproposal. Excluded from thearchitecture of stability that the implementation of a peaceplan would create will be the Islamic Republic of Iran.Trying to integrate a revolution that stands alone seemsdoomed to failure. In acknowledging the role that Russiaand China are playing in the peace process, the speakerpredicted that India could also play a significant role in theregion, enumerating the reasons for its anticipatedascendancy in the Middle East.

Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran The speaker expressed agreement with the speaker whocontended that the Shiite-Sunni conflict is not the majorsource of instability in the region. The speaker cited thereforms undertaken by the Saudi rulers who have begun totreat their Shiite subjects more leniently, even appointingShiites as ambassadors and as cabinet ministers. The UnitedStates, the speaker concluded, holds the key to stability inthe region. Its partisan political warfare acted out inCongress and broadcast throughout the world for everyone tosee, the speaker opined, presents a sorry spectacle. If theUnited States leaves Iraq before the Iraqis can defendthemselves against their internal and external enemies, thearchitecture of stability erected so far will collapse.

A speaker contrasted the positions taken by the UnitedStates in Iraq in 2003 and Lebanon in 2006. In the Lebanonconflict, the United States favored first a bilateral approachthat it had worked out with France. Later both countriesappealed to the European Union and the United Nations toresolve the conflict. In the speaker’s judgment, Lebanonmust be won to prevent Iran from using Syria as a stagingarea from which to dominate the region. From oneperspective, the situation poses a challenge to theinternational community’s responsibility to monitor borders.Moreover, it serves as a reminder of the multilateralobligation to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators ofpolitical assassinations. The speaker stated that it wasfinally possible to praise Saudi Arabia for trying to move thepeace process in the right direction. Although it cannot be

– 19 –

– 20 –

praised for social reforms, Saudi Arabia, the speakerrelated, has undertaken a number of economic reforms thathave proved to be effective.

From the speaker’s perspective, it is necessary to useeconomic sanctions against Iran to convince it to abandonits uranium-enrichment activities.

An observer asked for clarification. She asked whom in theLebanese government the speaker supported. TheMaronites, she queried? The speaker answered that thepolitical situation in Lebanon was fraught with complexity.The current president, General Emil Lahoud, was imposedby Syria, which forced a change in the constitution in orderto extend his term of office by three years. The politicalclimate was inflamed by the political assassinations offormer Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others, includingjournalists and members of parliament. Many Lebanesebelieve that Syria ordered the political killings. After across section of the Lebanese population took to the streetsto demand an independent government, Hezbollahorchestrated a large counterdemonstration. In summary,the speaker characterized the support expressed as anendorsement of the legitimate government of Lebanonversus the militia.

The next speaker voiced disagreement with the previousspeaker’s endorsement of the use of economic sanctionsagainst Iran, reminding participants of the ways in whichSaddam Hussein manipulated such sanctions in order toimpose totalitarian control over the Iraqi population. Fromthe speaker’s perspective, the world is witnessing what canbe termed “the penultimate phase of the absorption of thenation-state system into the political culture and society ofthe Middle East.” In that sense, the speaker expressedoptimism about the future of the region. The speakerreferred to the global, entrepreneurial economic systeminitiated by the United Arab Emirates, for example, andspeculated that in time Saudi Arabia may enact similarreforms that will erode the impact of the alliance betweenthe clerical establishment and the monarchy, which hindersthe growth of the Saudi economy.

An observer reviewed two predictions made about theMiddle East: one involving the sense that another war isimminent; the other the intuition that there is cause foroptimism. He asked the speakers to comment. One speakerremarked that last year’s war, provoked by Hezbollah, wasnot won by Israel because it conducted a bad war. In thatspeaker’s judgment, two things can be done to preventanother war. One is convincing Israel that it cannot andshould not act to protect the Syrian regime at the expenseof Lebanon. In that connection, the United States shouldtell the Israelis that such an undertaking would not be inthe interests of its major ally and protector. The otherinvolves U.S. engagement with Saudi Arabia. In fact, thespeaker maintained that although all interested powersneed to become engaged in approving an agreement, theUnited States has to exercise the most important role in thepeace process, for it has overriding national interests todefend in the region.

An observer focused on the amount of money flowing intothe region and the investments made as a result. Forexample, the Middle East has become not only one of theprime users of its most important natural resources—oil—but it is one of the most important markets for steel. Heexpressed the belief that when the money flow stops in theMiddle East, Iran will change. In his opinion, no one willcare which God he prays to if there is no money. In recallingthe story told about Golda Meir, who said that Moses wasno hero to her because he ran around the desert for 40 yearsand found the only place where there’s no oil, the speakernoted that the absence of oil in the disputed territoriesclaimed by the Palestinians and the Israelis is a partialcause of the conflict.

A Role for the NCAFPA host recounted the National Committee’s work in Track I-1/2 and Track II negotiations and asked the first speaker toaddress the question of whether it is realistic to contendthat attempts to enter into such discussions with Iran arenot possible because in effect there is no one to talk with.The speaker cited changes that have taken place in Iranthat may require reconsideration of that judgment. It is

– 21 –

– 22 –

clear, the speaker asserted, that the United States will notabandon Iraq as long as the Bush administration is inoffice. Furthermore, the nuclear issue has attracted theattention it deserves, and the Islamic Republic of Iran hasbeen put on notice that it can no longer do what it wantswithout incurring a price for unacceptable behavior.Moreover, the opposition that has developed inside Iran canbe engaged in a dialogue.

A speaker predicted that the IRI would rupture fromwithin. Another speaker expressed the opinion that anAmerican pullout from Iraq would hasten the weakening ofthe regime in Iran.

A speaker disagreed with that assessment, asserting thatan exit from Iraq, immediate or in a period that can becharacterized as short term, would not be beneficial to U.S.national interests or to global security. In the speaker’sjudgment, the world became unipolar in the historicalmoment that followed the end of the cold war. Then theUnited States was the only superpower.

A speaker reiterated the fact that the proposed withdrawalendorsed earlier would involve Iraq and not the region andthat redeployment, not abandonment, is the strategicimperative underlying that proposal.

Another speaker returned to the remarks that raised thequestion of whether undertaking track I-1/2 negotiations withIran is feasible. From the speaker’s perspective Iraq is abattlefield for a proxy war between Iran and the UnitedStates; the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would allowIran to have two client statelets—Kurdistan in the north andShiiastan in the south—bastions of controlled chaos that Irancould unleash and orchestrate in the region. The speakermaintained that by all accounts the situation is improving inIraq. Moreover, the United States has a moral obligation toIraq, which coincides with its national interests. The speakerdid not recommend economic sanctions that would seriouslyaffect the living standards of the Iranian population.

An observer asked whether allowing the Baathists to rejoin

the army in Iraq would stabilize the country and facilitatethe transfer of the security function to the government inBaghdad. A speaker answered that it was too late for that.Mistakes were made that cannot be easily undone. Theyinclude disbanding the army, removing all of the Baathistsfrom the government, and imposing a U.S. regime ofoccupation. The speaker reiterated that the Baathists hadformed the middle class in Iraq and the probable nucleusfor the democratization of the country. Their massdismissal from public service motivated many to emigrateor join the insurgency.

A Political AsideBefore presenting concluding remarks, a speaker againaddressed the Democratic party’s quest to bring about thetimed withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Thespeaker recommended that party leaders be given anopportunity to help formulate a Plan B that would givethem a sense that they were partners with the Bushadministration in formulating policy on Iraq.Consequently, their leaders would temper the electoralstrategy the party has adopted for winning the nextpresidential and congressional elections. If that happened,perhaps they would no longer feel impelled to charge theiropponents with losing the war in Iraq. In the speaker’sopinion, the United States has already won the war inIraq from which its troops should not be withdrawn untila structure of stability has been erected in the region andIran’s regional ambitions have been thwarted.

vvv

– 23 –

– 24 –

CONCLUSIONS

A speaker discussed the mood of optimism in the region. Heidentified the architecture of stability, or interlockingsystems, as well as the five Cs of the U.S. policy that heprescribed for the Middle East: (1) Contain Iran (2) Crushthe Syrian regime (3) Calm the Palestinians (4) ControlIraq (5) Cajole the Israelis. The speaker contended thatthere is a democratic movement in the Middle East, thoughno one would call it a facsimile of Jeffersonian democracy.Such terms as “accountability,” “participation,” “elections,”“freedom from censorship,” and “good governance” maysound like empty rhetoric here. Nevertheless, the repetitionof such concepts reflects recognition on the part of regimesin power in the region that the population is aware of whatis going on and demands reform. In addition, the emergenceof civil society and nongovernmental organizations in theregion testifies to the growing importance of participation,accountability, and commitment to democratic principles.

The speaker concluded by reiterating the contention thatas long as there is division in the American governmentover U.S. policy toward Iraq, the United States will not beable to play the leading role that it could otherwise seekin the Middle East in this favorable moment in history.

vvv

NCAFP POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Iran is a sovereign state governed by a theologically inspiredrevolutionary regime. As a sovereign state, Iran operates inthe international arena of states. As a revolutionary regimeharboring ambitions to forge an absolutist Islamic Empire,Iran is on a collision course with much of the region. Such aclash would produce grave global implications. Hence inorder to deal with this murky governmental configurationthat confounds legitimate interests of states with militantjihadist ambitions, the United States, working with itsallies, must employ the delicate tools of diplomacy untilIran’s fanatical theological passion has run its course—atrajectory similar perhaps to what transpired in Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Soviet Russia.

To help tame the revolutionary fervor of the regime,political realism favors a multifaceted approach thatincludes engaging Iran in track I, I-1/2, and II diplomaticand academic talks while maintaining effective economicsanctions in order to convince Iran’s leadership of thenecessity of resolving its nuclear ambitions. A nuclear Iranin the hands of theological fanatics with far-reachingambitions is unacceptable.

Because revolutionary Iran is widely feared as adestabilizing force in the Middle East and beyond, it is ofinterest to the United States and its allies to help stabilizethe region. Toward that end it is necessary to prevent Iranfrom transferring money and sending fighters and arms toIraq and by way of Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon andHamas in Gaza. Not only must Iraq’s borders with Iran andSyria be effectively sealed, but it is also necessary toprevent revolutionary Iran from using Syria to use Lebanonas a staging area from which to dominate the region.

vvv

– 25 –

ATTENDEESNCAFP HOST

Dr. George D. SchwabPresident, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

vPRESENTERSMr. Amir Taheri

Author and Commentor for CNN

Ms. Raghida DerghamSenior Diplomatic Correspondent, Al Hayat

Mr. Hassan I. MneimnehDirector, Iraq Memory Foundation

vOBSERVERS

Professor Giuseppe AmmendolaAdvisor, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Kenneth J. Bialkin, Esq.Trustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

The Honorable Donald BlinkenTrustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Mr. Charles A. BernheimMember, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

John V. Connorton, Esq.Trustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Dr. Susan A. GitelsonTrustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Mr. Howard GivnerMember, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Dr. George E. GruenAdvisor, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Richard R. Howe, Esq.Treasurer, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

–26 –

–27 –

Ms. Madeline KonigsbergTrustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Ms. Ann PhillipsMember, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Ms. Joan PetersTrustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Donald S. Rice, Esq.Senior Vice President, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Mr. William M. RudolfExecutive Vice President, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Ms. Grace Kennan WarneckeTrustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

v

STAFFMs. Cyrielle Jean-Sicard

Assistant to the President, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Mr. Daniel MorrisProgram Director, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

j–––––––––v–––––––––J

KENNAN AWARD RECIPIENTSHonorable George F. KennanHonorable Cyrus R. VanceHonorable Paul A. Volcker

Honorable Richard C. HolbrookeMaurice R. Greenberg

Honorable John D. Negroponte

THE WILLIAM J. FLYNN INITIATIVE FOR PEACE AWARD RECIPIENTSWilliam J. Flynn

Honorable George J. MitchellRight Honorable Dr. Marjorie Mowlam

Viola DrathHonorable Hugh Carey

Gerry Adams, M.P.

Honorable Angier Biddle DukeHonorable Sol Linowitz

Honorable Henry A. KissingerHonorable Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

Honorable George P. ShultzDavid Rockefeller

Honorable James A. Baker IIIRight Honorable Margaret Thatcher

Honorable Thomas R. PickeringHis Majesty King HusseinHonorable Colin L. Powell

Honorable Richard N. Haass

Robert L. Barbanell*Kenneth J. Bialkin, Esq.

Honorable Donald M. BlinkenGeneral Wesley K. Clark, USA (Ret.)

Steven Chernys*John V. Connorton, Jr., Esq.

*Viola DrathAnthony Drexel DukeDr. Susan A. Gitelson

Judith Hernstadt*Madeline Penachio Konigsberg

*Thomas J. Moran*Joan Peters

Honorable Thomas R. PickeringHonorable Nancy Soderberg

Grace Kennan Warnecke*Honorable Leon J. Weil

I. Peter WolffProfessor Donald S. Zagoria

TRUSTEES

Dr. Giuseppe AmmendolaProfessor Kenneth J. ArrowProfessor Bernard E. BrownProfessor Ralph BuultjensHonorable Herman Cohen

Professor Joseph W. Foxell, Jr.Professor George E. Gruen

Professor Bernard HaykelHonorable Robert E. HunterProfessor Franklin H. LittellDr. Jeffrey D. McCausland

Dr. J. Peter PhamDavid L. Phillips

Professor Richard Pipes

Dr. Carol RittnerProfessor Benjamin RivlinProfessor Henry RosovskyProfessor Michael Rywkin

Dr. Ronald J. Sheppard

BOARD OF ADVISERS

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ONAMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, INC.

FOUNDER – DR. HANS J. MORGENTHAU

MORGENTHAU AWARD RECIPIENTS

OFFICERS 2007Honorable Paul A. Volcker–Honorary Chairman

William J. Flynn–ChairmanDr. George D. Schwab–President

William M. Rudolf–Executive Vice PresidentDonald S. Rice, Esq.–Senior Vice President

Dr. Eve Epstein–Vice PresidentRichard R. Howe, Esq.–Treasurer

Professor Michael Curtis–Secretary

* Executive Committee

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ONAMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, INC.

320 Park AvenueNew York, N.Y. 10022

Telephone: (212) 224 1120 • Fax: (212) 224 2524E-Mail: contact@ncafp.org • Web site: http://www.ncafp.org