MIDDLE EAST: WHAT DOES PROGRESS LOOK LIKE?

Let us hope there is more going on than it appears. No matter where one looks in the Middle East, it seems that our best hope for progress is that there is something being worked out through back channel diplomacy. That is, something is being moved forward through direct secret discussions, official or unofficial, or through intermediaries. That has to be that hope since what we do see happening openly is not very encouraging.

In the unending search to give meaning to the so-called "peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians, what we are getting once again is confrontation rather than negotiation. By any standards, the road to creation of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza is marked by numerous hazardous issues. Right now progress toward a Palestinian state seems to be blocked at the starting gate. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' insistence on another Israeli moratorium on building settlements on the West Bank before negotiations can continue is confronted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahou's apparently nonnegotiable decision that the temporary pause in settlement construction will not be renewed. Despite any misgivings he may have about ending the moratorium, Netanyahou is boxed in by the ultra-right, pro-settlement members of his governing coalition. Extension or renewal of the moratorium would supposedly mean the collapse of his coalition, forcing new elections. And Abbas has his own problems on negotiating flexibility because Hamas which controls the Gaza part of the proposed new state is simply opposed to the negotiation from the outset.

President Obama and leaders of some other governments with Mideast interests have been pressing Netanyahou to extend the moratorium, but to no avail. Obama is seen in Israel as being less supportive of the Jewish state than previous Presidents and thus has less leverage with the Israeli government. Moreover, Obama's waning popularity at home further weakens his ability to nudge Israel, which enjoys strong backing in the Congress and a large segment of the public, into a more flexible position on the settlement issue. On the other hand, the United States certainly has a severe problem of gaining acceptance in the Muslim world where we are viewed as pro-Israel beyond redemption, as well as anti-Muslim.

So, despite the fanfare that surrounded the opening of the latest round of negotiations, we seem so far to have made little headway in building up any new momentum. That is, unless Abbas backs down and continues talks despite Netanyahou's stand-fast decision on settlements. If Abbas does retreat, it would further demonstrate his political weakness as a meaningful negotiating partner who speaks in behalf of all Palestinians.

Meanwhile, in Iraq the search for progress goes on. It has now been nearly seven months since the parliamentary elections but stalemate among the three centers of power has prevented the formation of a new government. The primary contenders are a Shiite coalition led by acting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and a Sunni-secular Shiite block headed by one time Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. The election results gave Allawi's group the narrowest of margins in winning parliamentary seats, but without a majority. The Kurds are the third group involved but their aim is to see what benefits they can extract as the balance of power to further strengthen their already semi-autonomous control in their northern region. The United States has been trying to nudge the three groups into a power sharing arrangement but any progress in that direction is well hidden.

Finally, there is Iran, referred to in a previous post as the 800 pound gorilla. Among the many outstanding issues with that country are: 1) its nuclear ambitions; 2) its role in Afghanistan where it is helping the Taliban in its war with the U.S. and its NATO allies; and 3) Iran's role as a participant in any political settlement in Afghanistan, a settlement that would include so-called moderate Taliban leaders.

When Iran gets new pressures on the nuclear issue via economic sanctions or in its more- than-not-friendly economic and military relations with Russia and China, it resorts to the traditional Mideast negotiating strategy. That strategy is akin to the image of the protracted buyer-seller haggling over the price of a rug at the local bazaar. Iran has now suggested that it might be open to a possible solution that will guarantee it an external supply of enriched uranium to sustain its peaceful nuclear goals, while at the same time controlling its access to highly enriched uranium needed for weapons development. This has the echo of an earlier solution talked about but never concluded. If there are any serious talks on such an approach, one can almost be assured that Iran will seek to draw out such discussions in bazaar-like fashion while it continues to pursue its own nuclear ambitions, whatever they may be.

As to Afghanistan, Iran may have the luxury of more time before playing a role in any political settlement. First, unfortunately, it seems that there is still a lot of fighting to be done. While Afghan President Hamid Karzai might prefer a go-it-alone strategy for dealing politically with the Taliban, it is difficult to imagine a political settlement that does not take into account the views and concerns of the United States and the diverse, competing interests within the Pakistani government. A political way out of Afghanistan is still just a gleam in the American/NATO eye; meanwhile Iran can continue to play its hostile role while waiting to see what benefits it can extract at no cost by cooperating in regional political settlement at the right time.

In answer to the opening question, "What does progress look like" in the Middle East?; the answer is, "How can I tell? I don't see any."