Implications for U.S. Policy

Summary:




The second panel of the afternoon conference, “Implications for U.S. Policy,” featured Elliott Abrams, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Aaron David Miller, a Public Policy Advisor to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. FPI Director William Kristol, Editor of The Weekly Standard, served as moderator.



Aaron David Miller summarized his opening statements in four key points. First, the Arab Spring is an authentic and indigenous uprising. Second, the United States must expect the transition from authoritarianism to democracy to be disorganized and difficult. Economic disparity and ethnic tension will likely compound this problem. Third, the Arab Spring reveals the contradiction in key United States policies. For many years, American policy placed stability in the region over human rights. In Bahrain and Yemen, for example, the administration must now decide whether American values stand in conflict with short term security interests. Fourth, setbacks will occur as American policy choices will cause the United States anger grieving dictatorships and neglected opposition.



Elliott Abrams then outlined the negative implications of Obama’s Middle East strategy. In two years, President Obama’s policies undercut peace negotiations in Israel, dropped President Bush’s Freedom Agenda across the Middle East, abandoned Egypt’s opposition movement, and fell silent as protestors were murdered in the streets of Tehran in 2009. The United States, he assessed, led democratic opposition movements in the Middle East to feel abandoned.



William Kristol then questioned the panelist on the situation in Libya. Miller expressed his belief that Muammar Gaddafi is likely to remain in power, though opposition forces could form pockets of resistance throughout the country. The Obama administration’s cautionary approach to the situation, he said, derives from President Obama’s reluctance to broaden American military influence into another Arab country. Politely, Abrams disagreed; arguing the decision is due to the President’s disposition to assert American influence abroad, regardless of the situation. On Libya, he said, the President has not taken the lead, despite calls for action by the Arab League, Britain and France.



Pressed on the continued turmoil in Bahrain, Abrams warned that the situation must be contained. The royal family must be willing to make concessions and reforms to the opposition Shiite population, though the Khalifa family is unlikely to compromise. Without a deal, the government could fall within two years, Abrams predicted.



Kristol then questioned the two panelists on Saudi Arabia. Abrams noted that in addition to the economic cushioning provided by the Saudi royal family in the wake of regional events, the Saudi king is well respected by a majority of the country’s conservative population. He assessed that the Saudi government will likely survive current regional uprising, but will face a succession crisis after the passing of the royal king. With the rise of neighboring democratic movements, Miller added, the young and untrained male population of Saudi Arabia will become more restless, eventually leading to a large uprising against the government.



In closing, the panel discussed the impact of the Arab Spring on Iran. Miller noted the negative impact it will have on international attempts to curb Iran’s nuclear program. In Egypt, for example, though military fears of an Iranian nuclear weapon have not diminished, Egypt’s future leaders will not be as personally invested in stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon as former President Hosni Mubarak was. In the long term, Elliott Abrams concluded, there remains the possibility that the Arab Spring will produce democracies in the Middle East, which in turn, will isolate and curb Iran’s regional influence.