organization:washington institute for near east policy

  • Three Months After U.S. Freeze, Syrian Recovery Stuck in Limbo – Foreign Policy
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/29/three-months-after-u-s-freeze-syrian-recovery-stuck-in-limbo-isis-tru

    Short on funding, U.S. and European programs designed to help rebuild after the Islamic State are faltering.

    Nearly three months after the White House froze roughly $200 million earmarked to help fund recovery in Syria, U.S. and European officials trying to stabilize the country’s north are scrambling to plug the gaps left by the near-complete withdrawal of American assistance.

    Critical programs meant to restore power and clean water and to clear land mines out of urban areas have been disrupted, and the much-needed networks of local assistance are melting away without funding. Other countries are reluctant to cover the difference while Washington is missing in action.
    […]
    People are very upset in Raqqa because everything is destroyed and there is no help,” said Fabrice Balanche, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who visited the region this year. “They say, ‘You came here to expel [the Islamic State], you destroyed everything, and you don’t rebuild anything and you don’t help us.’

    • Tirer une centaine de missiles à 1 M$ pièce (je sais, c’est juste du déstockage, mais on va les remplacer, peut-être pour une somme supérieure…) ça on peut.

      Sortir la même somme pour remettre en état les réseaux d’eau et d’électricité, ça on n’a pas les moyens.

  • The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: You rarely see such a #WINEP disclaimer in a Western publication: they used to do that in the past
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2018/05/you-rarely-see-such-winep-disclaimer-in.html

    “The trend line that both countries are taking seems headed in the direction of a serious clash,” Michael Eisenstadt, director of military and security studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close ties to the Israeli military , tells Newsweek. (thanks Basim)

    http://www.newsweek.com/2018/05/11/syria-war-israel-iran-906959.html

  • Between ISIS and Iran: Bahrain Tweaks Washington - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/between-isis-and-iran-bahrain-tweaks-washington

    For now, the prime minister’s age and reported ill health suggest that his reappointment may be a stopgap measure. Despite American officials counseling the king to remove him for decades, Sheikh Khalifa shows no desire to step down, and those close to him portray his possible departure in terms of “apres moi, le deluge.” A quiet campaign of support for him has been growing for several months, with big posters showing his photo and the words “The People. Khalifa bin Salman. The Red Line,” implying that getting rid of him would be a step too far. But if he were to go, several of the royal family members currently serving as deputy prime ministers could potentially replace him:

    Crown Prince Salman, who would likely push his reformist agenda amid opposition from the hardliners.
    Muhammad bin Mubarak al-Khalifa (age 79), the next most senior deputy prime minister after Salman, who is regarded as a conciliatory figure and was foreign minister for thirty-five years until 2005.
    Ali bin Khalifa al-Khalifa, Sheikh Khalifa’s son.
    Khalid bin Abdullah al-Khalifa, the favored candidate of the Khawalid hardliners.

  • Au Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East et au WINEP, on défend ouvertement nos amis d’Al Qaeda :
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/02/241894_us-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria.html?sp=/99/200/111/&rh=1

    “If indeed we end up hitting Nusra hard, then we’re forcing the opposition to choose a side,” said Faysal Itani, a Syria specialist with the Washington-based Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. “And we’re depriving them of a key asset when, at the same time, we don’t have a plan to boost their capabilities fast enough to make up for the loss of Nusra.”

    […]

    The risk of empowering an al Qaida affiliate is a small price to pay for Nusra’s contributions on the battlefield, said Jeffrey White, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who’s now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank.

    “We are degrading, by hitting Nusra, the capability of one of the most effective combat forces against the regime and against Hezbollah,” White said, referring to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia that has sent troops to help defend the Assad government. “Do we really want to do that? A broader campaign against Nusra needs to be carefully thought through.”

    • http://seenthis.net/messages/291450

      (...)

      The center was created with a generous donation from Bahaa Hariri , his eldest son, and with the support of the rest of the Hariri family, which has remained active in politics and business in the Middle East. Another son of the former prime minister served as Lebanon’s prime minister from 2009 to 2011.

      But by the summer of 2013, when Egypt’s military forcibly removed the country’s democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, Ms. Dunne soon realized there were limits to her independence. After she signed a petition and testified before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging the United States to suspend military aid to Egypt, calling Mr. Morsi’s ouster a “military coup,” Bahaa Hariri called the Atlantic Council to complain, executives with direct knowledge of the events said.

      Ms. Dunne declined to comment on the matter. But four months after the call, Ms. Dunne left the Atlantic Council.

  • Yemen Crisis Spells Trouble in Saudi Arabia’s Backyard - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/yemen-crisis-spells-trouble-in-saudi-arabias-backyard

    Washington’s Gulf partners in the coalition against ISIS are increasingly distracted by the takeover of the Yemeni capital by pro-Iranian Houthi tribesmen.

    On October 1, the interior ministers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, joined by the head of Saudi intelligence, held an “emergency” meeting in the Saudi Red Sea port city of Jeddah to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation in Yemen, where the government of President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi has lost control of the capital, Sana. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been guiding an “initiative” to smooth political reform since the 2012 collapse of the regime of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. An official statement afterward, apart from platitudes like the “necessity to restore all official headquarters and institutions,” included the ominous phrase that the GCC states will not idly tolerate “foreign interference,” an obvious reference to Iran.

    #yémen #arabie_saoudite #golfe

  • L’argent du pétrole alimente désormais directement l’État islamique...

    The Islamic State Is the Newest Petrostate

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/28/baghdadis_hillbillies_isis_iraq_syria_oil_terrorism_islamic_state

    REPORT
    The Islamic State Is the Newest Petrostate
    The Islamic State, the world’s richest terror group, is reaping millions of dollars a day from selling stolen oil to shady businessmen across the Middle East.

    BY KEITH JOHNSON JULY 28, 2014


    SHARE +
    753 SHARES
    IRAQ
    ENERGY
    OIL
    SYRIA
    MIDDLE EAST
    The homicidal maniacs of the Islamic State, like many shady and not-so-shady groups before it, are apparently getting into the oil business. And it seems to suit them as they reportedly are making millions of dollars per day off of it.
    The militants who have conquered broad swaths of Iraq and Syria are turning to good old-fashioned crime — oil smuggling, in this case — to underwrite its main line of work. The money it can earn from illicit oil sales further bolsters the group’s status as one of the richest self-funded terrorist outfits in the world, dependent not on foreign governments for financial support but on the money its reaped from kidnappings and bank robberies. The group has also managed to steal expensive weaponry that the United States had left for the Iraqi military, freeing it from the need to spend its own money to buy such armaments.
    But even the millions of dollars a day that the Islamic State seems to be raking in by trucking stolen oil across porous borders is not enough to meet the hefty obligations created by the group’s own headlong expansion. Taking over big chunks of territory, as in eastern Syria and in northern Iraq, could also leave it forced to take on the sorts of expensive obligations — such as paying salaries, collecting the trash, and keeping the lights on — usually reserved for governments.
    “They’ve gone from being the world’s richest terrorist organization to the world’s poorest state,” said Michael Knights, a Middle East expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
    “They’ve gone from being the world’s richest terrorist organization to the world’s poorest state,” said Michael Knights, a Middle East expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
    As with much of what the Islamic State purportedly does, the group’s actual role in trading illicit Syrian and Iraqi oil is hard to pin down. The Islamic State seemingly controls the majority of Syria’s oil fields, especially in the country’s east; human rights observers say 60 percent of Syrian oil fields are in the hands of militants or tribes. The Islamic State also seems to have control of several small oil fields in Iraq as well, though reports differ on whether most of those wells are capped or whether the Islamists are producing and shipping serious volumes of stolen Iraqi oil across the border.
    In all, energy experts estimate that illicit production in Iraq and Syria — largely by the Islamic State — is north of 80,000 barrels a day. That’s a tiny amount compared with stable oil-producing countries’ output, but it is a lot of potentially valuable oil in the hands of a group that even al Qaeda considers beyond the pale.
    If that oil fetched global market prices, it would be worth a small fortune: $8 million a day. But as the Sunni militant group’s new neighbors in Iraqi Kurdistan have discovered, it’s not easy to get top dollar for what many consider black-market oil. The Islamic State allegedly sells much of its production to middlemen in Syria, who then bring it to refineries in Turkey, Iran, or Kurdistan.
    That oil is essentially fenced and likely fetches only about $10 to $22 a barrel, said Valérie Marcel, an oil expert at Chatham House in London. Crude trades just above $100 a barrel in New York and London.
    In Iraq, the Islamic State apparently cut out middlemen and uses its own fleet of tankers, which means it can reap between $50 and $60 a barrel, Marcel said. Other reports put the terrorist group’s Iraqi oil proceeds as low as $25 a barrel.
    “They’re taking a massive discount, and they’re only achieving a small fraction of the value” of the oil, the Washington Institute’s Knights said. Altogether, the group’s oil smuggling could be generating on the order of $1 million to $2 million a day. Other analysts say the Islamic State’s oil income could be as much as $3 million a day.
    The United Nations is taking notice. On Monday, July 28, it warned countries against buying oil from militants in Iraq or Syria, saying that such purchases would violate U.N. sanctions on the terrorist group.
    With the Islamic State at the helm, that oil boom certainly won’t last forever. The old oil fields in Syria and Iraq need lots of care, such as injections to keep the pressure up and output reliable; the lack of trained technicians and the frequent turnover have been a nightmare for proper reservoir management and will ultimately lower future output at those fields, Marcel said.
    Still, all else being equal, that kind of control over oil fields, oil revenues, and petroleum products would be a financial shot in the arm for any terrorist outfit. Control of oil products, from gas canisters needed for cooking to fuel needed for transport, gives the group additional local leverage. And the revenue bolsters the Islamic State’s ability to recruit and pay fighters and to buy weapons.
    However, that money is also desperately needed to cover the salaries of public workers in places the militants now occupy. Providing basic public services to show that they can do more than conquer and crucify, but can govern to a limited extent, also costs money. Serving as an unelected proxy for ousted or absent governments has long been a way for Islamist groups, from Hezbollah to Hamas, to broaden popular support.
    “They need to keep their war machine going, but they also need to govern, and that’s costing them money,” said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He estimates that most of the oil revenue is quickly spent pacifying restless tribal leaders, bribing coalition partners, and paying to keep functional the basic sinews of daily life.
    “If they don’t make happen the things that people are used to see happening, their rule is going to look really, really bad,” he said.
    Here’s the thing about the Islamic State’s newfound oil wealth: Big money is not unique among terrorist groups, and in this case, it’s probably not enough.
    Here’s the thing about the Islamic State’s newfound oil wealth: Big money is not unique among terrorist groups, and in this case, it’s probably not enough.
    Oil money is just one slice of an illicit pie funding the group. In Syria and Iraq, protection rackets, extortion, local taxes, and other forms of smuggling all pour millions of dollars into the Islamic State’s coffers. Brett McGurk, the State Department’s point man on Iraq, told Congress last week that even before the militants captured Mosul, Iraq’s second-biggest city, the group was raking in $12 million a month from illicit activities there.
    And in the pantheon of terrorist groups, none of which has conquered the world, top-line illicit revenues of a few hundred million dollars a year are not unusual. The U.S. government estimates that more than a score of the groups on its list of designated foreign terrorist organizations are deeply involved in transnational criminal activities.
    The Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, raked in between $100 million and $200 million annually from the drug trade and smuggling timber and minerals. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb took home dozens of millions of dollars a year from ransom kidnappings; over a decade, the group possibly netted as much as $200 million. Hezbollah took a page from The Sopranos and made a fortune off stolen or counterfeit cigarettes. Al-Shabab fueled its fight with proceeds from human trafficking, while cocaine money kept Colombia’s FARC in the field for decades.
    More importantly, the Islamic State’s access to some oil revenues pales in comparison with its obligations and points to the group’s longer-term vulnerabilities.
    Part of its illicit empire, such as extortion and shakedowns in towns across northern Iraq, is crumbling after Baghdad froze public salaries for those areas. That’s a double blow to the group: No local incomes to extort, and now the Islamic State has to pay the payroll tab itself. At the same time, the group’s barbarity, lack of outreach to even like-minded Salafi groups, and territorial overreach may have sown the seeds of its own downfall.
    “They’re overplaying their hand everywhere they have a hand, and that’s going to come back and hurt them,” Gartenstein-Ross said.
    Moreover, control of a few small oil fields that translates into heavily discounted smuggling revenues won’t be enough to give the Islamic State staying power.
    “They can bring power, fear, and intimidation, and they can even bring unsophisticated social services,” Knights said. “What they can’t do is bring the resources of the Iraqi state,” a $120 billion national budget underwritten by the nearly 3 million barrels of oil shipped daily out of southern Iraqi oil terminals.
    “Without that oil from Basra, then ISIS are just Palestinians,” Knights added.

  • Poll: Palestinians overwhelmingly reject two-state solution, want Palestine ’from river to sea’ - D
    By Haaretz | Jun. 30, 2014
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.601938

    By more than a 2-1 margin, Palestinians oppose the two-state solution, favoring instead the goal of a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” according to a recent poll by the centrist Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

    At the same time, though, the poll found that a large majority of Palestinians favored the tactic of “popular resistance” – such as demonstrations and strikes – over violence to achieve their goals, Globes reported Sunday.

    Interestingly, Gazans were more moderate when it came to tactics, but more hardline about the goal.

    The survey also found that West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas was a much more popular leader than Gazan leader Ismail Haniyeh – both in the West Bank (28.1 percent to 6.9 percent) and in the Gaza Strip (32.4 percent to 11.7 percent).

    The poll, which questioned a relatively large sample of 1,200 respondents, was taken June 15-17 – following the abductions of three Israeli teenagers, the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government, and the collapse of the Kerry peace talks. However, it was conducted just before West Bank protests arose against Abbas for his cooperation with Israel’s search for the kidnapped boys and crackdown on Hamas.

    Goals vs. tactics

    Asked what political goal they favored over the next five years, 60.3 percent replied “action to return historic Palestine, from the river to the sea, to our hands,” while 27.3 percent answered “end[ing] the occupation of the West Bank in order to reach a two-state solution.”

    Another 10.1 percent said the goal should be a "one-state solution, for the entire region, from the river to the sea, in which Jews and Arabs enjoy equal rights.”

    If a Palestinian leadership were to reach agreement with Israel on a two-state deal, 64 percent said Palestinians should still continue to press on for a Palestinian state encompassing the territories and Israel, while 31.6 percent said they would accept a two-state solution.

    On the question of tactics, again, the trend was toward moderation, with 70 percent of Gazans and 56 percent of West Bankers saying Hamas should observe a cease-fire with Israel. Asked if Hamas should go along with Abbas’ demand that the unity government publicly renounce violence, 57 percent of Gazans agreed, while West Bankers were split evenly.

    Popular resistance won the support of 73 percent Palestinians in Gaza and 62 percent of those in the West Bank.

  • Indyk: Settlements could drive Israel into binational reality

    By Haaretz | May 9, 2014
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.589724

    U.S. special envoy to the Middle East peace talks Martin Indyk issued a strong condemnation of Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank on Thursday night, saying that it could “drive Israel into an irreversible binational reality.”

    “Rampant settlement activity – especially in the midst of negotiations – doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the purpose of the negotiations; it can undermine Israel’s Jewish future,” he said. “If this continues, it could mortally wound the idea of Israel as a Jewish state – and that would be a tragedy of historic proportions.”

    Indyk was speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s founders’ conference, where he gave a review of the nine months of peace talks.

    In a carefully nuanced speech that blamed and praised both sides equally, the U.S. envoy said that, while both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had shown flexibility in the talks, the leaders “don’t feel the pressing need to make gut-wrenching compromises.”

    If the U.S. is the only party with a sense of urgency, “the negotiations will not succeed,” he said.

    “The fact is both the Israelis and Palestinians missed opportunities, and took steps that undermined the process,” Indyk stated. “We have spoken publicly about unhelpful Israeli steps that combined to undermine the negotiations. But it is important to be clear: We view steps the Palestinians took during the negotiations as unhelpful too.”

    Indyk’s objective seemed to be the same as that of visiting U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who met both Netanyahu and Abbas earlier in the day: To prevent the situation deteriorating further and coax the sides back into negotiations.

    “It is critical that both sides now refrain from taking any steps that could lead to an escalation and dangerous spiral that could easily get out of control,” he said. “Thus far since the negotiations been suspended they have both shown restraint and it is essential that this continue.”

    Comparing the current negotiations with former secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s peace-making with Egypt, Indyk said that American President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry would never suspend military relations with Israel as Kissinger had done. “Those military relations are too important for both our nations,” he said.

    He added that the U.S.-Israel relationship had changed dramatically since Kissinger’s day. “Only those who know it from the inside – as I have had the privilege to do – can testify to how deep and strong are the ties that now bind our two nations. When President Obama speaks with justifiable pride about those bonds as ’unbreakable’ he means what he says.”

    Indyk said that he had seen many hopeful signs during the course of the negotiations – “moments of recognition by both sides of what is necessary.” But it had not been enough to bring the talks to a successful conclusion.

    “I have seen moments when both sides talked past each other without being able to recognize it,” he said. “But I have also seen moments of genuine camaraderie and engagement in the negotiating room to find a settlement to these vexing challenges.”

    Indyk concluded by saying that he didn’t know if or when the talks would resume, but he hoped that it would be soon.

    “When [Netanyahu and Abbas] are ready, they will certainly find in Secretary Kerry and President Obama willing partners in the effort to try again – if they are prepared to do so in a serious way.”

  • Pour le pouvoir israélien actuel, mieux vaut avoir des ennemis que des amis...

    Israel is sanctifying the status quo and ignoring the possibility of a new Iran - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/for-the-israeli-government-iran-will-never-change.premium-1.530015

    A few hours before the unprecedented political drama unfolded on Friday in Iran, Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon reported to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and laid out his philosophy.

    The head of the Israeli defense establishment declared - without any reservations - that nothing will change as a result of the Iranian election and that, in any event, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will decide on the country’s next president.

    It did not take long for the depth of Ya’alon’s embarrassment of himself, and of those on whose behalf he flew to Washington, became clear. At best, Ya’alon’s remarks reflected a serious error in judgment on the part of Israeli intelligence and provided additional proof of the limitations of Military Intelligence and the Mossad in predicting internal political shifts in Iran and in Arab states. At worst, his words reflected arrogance, prejudice and shooting from the hip of the very worst kind.

    But how can we complain about Ya’alon, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in Poland on Wednesdsay that Iran’s “so-called” election will not bring about any meaningful change. Netanyahu’s and Ya’alon’s Pavlovian responses, as well as the statement issued by the Foreign Ministry on Saturday night, reflect the overall approach of the Likud government which rejects all change, exaggerates the threats, plays down the opportunities and sanctifies the status quo.

    The only thing missing was for Netanyahu and Ya’alon to call for extending the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as in the case of Egypt and former President Hosni Mubarak.

    One thing is clear: Khamenei did not want Hasan Rowhani to win the presidential election. Iran’s supreme leader backed his national security adviser and nuclear talks envoy, Saeed Jalili. Jalilee was trounced, coming in third place and a distant 15 million votes away from Rowhani.

    Another thing is clear, too: The election will change things in Iran. A hint of this could have been found a few days ago, when Reuters published the contents of a letter sent five months ago to Khamenei by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, behind Ahmadinejad’s back. Salehi called on the country’s supreme leader to enter into direct talks with the United States as soon as possible. In his written response to Salehi, Khamenei said he was not optimistic about the prospects for success, but would not stop them from reaching out to Washington.

    Rowhani, as former head of Iran’s negotiations team on the nuclear issue, called back in 2005 for direct talks with the United States, made the elimination of the international sanctions against Iran the central plank of his election campaign. He even slammed Jalili for being too tough in the talks with the West.

    The post-election period could be an opportunity for a diplomatic breakthrough in Iran’s relations with the United States in general and on the nuclear issue in particular, especially in light of the results of the election.

    One more point should be mentioned, as for Ya’alon. In his remarks on Friday, the defense minister also dismissed the Arab peace initiative, including the positive change introduced recently as a result of the efforts of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, as nothing but “spin” by the media.

    Ya’alon’s remarks, coming at a time when Kerry is endeavoring to restart the peace process, were much harsher than Netanyahu’s relatively moderate message to the Knesset ten days ago. “We listen to every initiative and are willing to discuss any motion that is not a requisition,” Netanyahu said at the time.

  • Israeli raising funds to help Syrians ’dying near us’ - Israel News, Ynetnews
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4378562,00.html

    Kahana took part in an annual conference of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he raised the flag of the Free Syrian Army during a speech by an opposition activist. “While I’m here to assist the Free Syria movement, my brother Steve is on reserve service at the Golan Heights, treating injured Syrians,” said Kahana, who lives in New Jersey but has family in Israel.

    The annual Soref policy conference attracts participants ranging from Middle East experts to Israeli and Arab policy makers. Speaking to Israeli reporters, two speakers affiliated with the Syrian opposition addressed the possibility of a US aerial attack against the forces of Bashar Assad’s regime.