EDITOR’S NOTE — Since Donald Trump’s victory in the November 5 election, The Cipher Brief has reached out to our network of experts for thoughts on what the priorities ought to be for the second Trump administration. Our ask was straightforward: If you were given the opportunity of a short visit with the president during his first days in office, what message would you want to deliver?
In this latest installment of our “Memos to 47” series, Gary Grappo, a former U.S. Ambassador to Oman, covers the seismic changes that have rattled the Middle East over the past year, and what he believes the next administration should do by way of response.
To the president-elect:
What has changed in the Middle East since your last presidency? Everything and nothing.
It remains an ever-dangerous region, even more so post-October 7, 2023. The United States is still the region’s preeminent power, though not without competitors near and far. Israel is the strongest regional power but dependent on continuing American support. The Israeli-Palestinian struggle, the region’s longest enduring conflict, remains the region’s most pernicious and further from resolution than any time since the 1970s. And Iran and its so-called “axis of resistance” present the region’s greatest threat to stability, though it’s been strategically weakened after underestimating and challenging Israel directly and overestimating its own now-suspect capabilities.
And now, at year’s end, a stunning development that almost no one saw coming: the fall of the regime of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
In short, the region is probably more volatile than at any time since 1973, when then President Richard Nixon ordered U.S. nuclear forces to move to Defcon 3 in response to a US-perceived Soviet threat to intervene in the Middle East crisis of the day.
What to do about Syria
The shocking development in the region since the election has been Assad’s fall. His regime would have fallen a decade ago but for the interventions of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. But thanks to Israel and Ukraine, those backers have abandoned Assad, and his empty shell of a government and under-sourced, poorly led and feckless army quickly followed suit.
While your earlier admonition that the U.S. stay out of the fight was prudent, circumstances now are different. To expect a Jeffersonian democracy to arise in a country with no tradition or culture of democracy would be ludicrous and naïve. However, the U.S., Israel and moderate Arab states have been handed an extraordinary opportunity. Russia and Iran have effectively departed Syria. We should take action to ensure they do not return. There’s an opportunity to move Syria into the collective of moderate Arab states, not necessarily a democracy but one that fosters stability at home and in the region. To do that, these nations must leverage Syria’s desperate need, estimated at some $200 billion, for humanitarian aid and investment to rebuild a nation and economy decimated by twelve years of civil war. Turkey may also be induced to join an effort to promote the return of approximately three million Syrian refugees now in Turkey back to their homes.
This will mean getting involved in Syria, first by quickly finding a way to work with the moderate Arabs to reach Abu Mohammed al-Golani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and encourage him to abandon all vestiges of militant Islamism and work with the many disparate groups in the country to form a government. This will be an enormous challenge. Having been mostly united in their shared objective of removing Assad, these groups are likely to experience the centrifugal forces sparked by his ouster and a desire to “claim their share” of the political and economic spoils.
No one, except Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, should have any interest in seeing Syria now descend into civil war, as happened in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya or Iraq. That will require enormous work on the part of many parties, but the U.S. should become active to make this happen. An unstable Syria will mean a continuing unstable Middle East. You may wish to consider naming a coordinator for Syrian affairs to lead your effort, perhaps someone with a strong track record in the Middle East and able to work easily with the collection of governments whose efforts will be critical to help building a stable Syria.
How October 7 changed the region
There is another major change. The Gaza war has ignited a multi-front war, pitting Israel against not only Hamas but also Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian-backed Shia militia groups in Syria and Iraq, the Houthis of Yemen and Iran itself. While the conflict is regional in character for now, it’s vital to understand the global nature of the region’s ongoing conflicts, and the potential for it all to escalate to something much more dangerous. The Middle East is but one theater of the world in which American and allied interests are under threat. The challengers comprise the so-called “axis of upheaval,” made up of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Managing U.S. interests and the challenges to them in this particularly fraught region must be balanced against greater threats the nation faces in East Asia and Eastern Europe from China and Russia, respectively.
Iran exports critically needed cheap oil to China, which remains North Korea’s most indispensable ally. North Korea has deployed its own forces as well as missiles and other weapons to help Russia in its war of aggression in Ukraine. Iran also exports desperately needed rockets, missiles and drones to Russia, which it then launches against Ukraine. Russia shares weapons, technology and intelligence with Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran. The axis of upheaval is deeply involved in the region’s conflicts. That poses major dangers to America and its interests and to its allies in the Middle East. It also poses the grim and very real prospect of conflict beyond the borders of the Middle East.
What might be some guideposts for your incoming administration as it contends with a region seemingly resistant to peaceful change? First, to borrow from the Hippocratic oath, “do no harm.” The application of America’s prodigious power has much to offer in armed conflict. But the region’s problems are largely political and require creative, innovative, often risky and daring political solutions, sometimes backed up by that vaunted power. The challenge is when to lean toward diplomacy or to force, including economic warfare, e.g., sanctions. Where America’s existential interests are not threatened, lean into tough, principled, clear-eyed diplomacy. Where U.S. interests are undermined, prepare to bring overwhelming force and be clear about it. The nations of the Middle East respect power, especially when it can be leveraged in pursuit of political solutions.
In a weakened Iran, an opportunity
When it comes to Iran, the U.S. and its Western allies, including Israel, face a continuing threat from the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program, which still lacks an actual weapon or clear intent to deploy one. America’s message must be clear: a nuclear weapon in Iran won’t be tolerated, and Iran risks devastation by even hinting of moving in that direction. Short of that, however, the climate may be considerably improved from when you left office in January 2021.
Iran’s strategic defense plan has been eviscerated, thanks largely to Israeli prowess and American support. Its own axis of resistance, built on its militant proxy groups and intended as a forward defense policy, can no longer be counted on to deliver a meaningful deterrent to attacks against the Iranian homeland, as Israel has proven.
Moreover, Iran’s rocket forces, though still lethal, do not present the existential threat to Israel that Iran may have previously envisioned. Iran is more vulnerable to U.S. and Israeli military threats than at any time in the last 25 years, and maybe longer. That doesn’t mean it’s been rendered harmless. Its rocket forces, even without nuclear warheads but with precision guidance, are capable of inflicting enormous damage in Israel, especially Israeli cities, as well as on American assets in the region.
Iran’s economy, despite rampant sanctions busting, is worse, and without sanctions relief stands little chance of reaching its enormous potential. Government mismanagement is equally if not more responsible for the country’s economic plight. Inflation is growing and the poverty level creeps upward. The exceptionally underperforming economy has only compounded the government’s domestic political problems. Recent polling suggests overall popular support of the government below 20 percent. In addition, there is the looming question of succession to the aging Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. There is much uncertainty and discomfort in Iran today.
In fact, the Islamic Republic needs help that only the United States can offer. This confluence of strategic vulnerability, a fragile economy, oppression by omnipresent security forces and ominous political instability favorably positions the U.S. and its allies for negotiation with the Iranian leadership. This doesn’t necessarily preclude a return to your earlier policy of “maximum pressure.” But it requires providing the Iranian leadership with a reasonable off ramp through diplomacy. Therefore, at some early point in your new administration, a quiet message to the leadership laying out what we might seek through negotiations might prove profitable. And negotiations via a facilitator, as President Biden’s negotiators had to do, should be ruled out. Face-to-face negotiations, likely at some neutral site, remain the most effective way to communicate and achieve tangible results. Moreover, this time, any negotiations with Iran must include not only halting its nuclear weapons program but also terminating its support for the region’s terrorists.
A deal with Saudi Arabia?
The Abraham Accords were a signature achievement of your first administration. President Biden’s negotiators have made considerable progress toward expanding those accords to include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, which were carried out in part to foreclose those negotiations, halted progress. Including Saudi Arabia in those accords and making the kingdom a strategic ally of the U.S. would represent an epochal change for the region and the entire Muslim world, ushering in a new period of ever-stronger American partnership with the Arab world. Your new administration must be aware, however, that the animosity between Iran and the Gulf States that previously animated closer ties to the US are much reduced, largely due to the efforts of Iran and the Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Nevertheless, the opportunity for advancing and expanding the Abraham Accords remains strong and should be a priority of your new administration.
Unfortunately, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has raised the cost of entry by specifically requiring a Palestinian state before normalizing relations with Israel. Undoubtedly, anxious domestic politics brought on by the Gaza war figured prominently in his decision. With time and, most critically, a change in circumstances in the ongoing Gaza war, he might be persuaded to change that position. But it will require an end to the war in Gaza, the initiation of herculean efforts to address the humanitarian crisis there and concerted action to rebuild the battered territory. Saudi Arabia needs to play a role in that.
But it also will mean appealing to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reassess his perspective – not just on Gaza but especially on the Palestinian question. Bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords and into a normalized relationship with Israel might present possibilities for Saudi assurances vis-a-vis Palestine and the Palestinians. But that won’t happen without some intense diplomacy among the three countries, at some point likely requiring your personal intervention.
And then, the Palestinian question
This begs the question of the ultimate disposition of the Palestinian issue. While some path must be offered to Palestinians of both Gaza and the West Bank for a better and more secure life, negotiating statehood isn’t possible at present. The emotion and trauma of the conflict are too raw. Neither side is of the necessary mental disposition to begin productive talks. And the Palestinians lack competent leadership in whom they can place their trust and confidence. But this cannot preclude steps by the U.S., Israel, moderate Arab states and cooperating Western nations to begin helping Palestinians, especially in Gaza, rebuild their lives.
Importantly, if negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are ever to begin, it will mean new and fresh leadership for them that does not include Hamas. The U.S. needs to make clear that the present leadership of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah needs to go. For reference, the new administration may wish to refer to the experience of the George W. Bush administration in April 2004, when it severed ties with then-Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat and called for elections of new Palestinian leadership. The question of Palestinian independence is highly contentious and problematic in any circumstance. But continuation of the current ossified, corrupt, bloated, and ineffectual geriatric cabal in Ramallah only complicates a new and brighter future for the Palestinians. Palestinians would welcome fresh leadership. The U.S., with the support of moderate Arab states like Saudi Arabia, must make that clear to the crowd in Ramallah.
Your administration will have to apply pressure on the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu to explicitly spell out his conditions for ending the war in Gaza and what comes after. Israel has made tremendous progress in dismantling Hamas as both a military and governing organization in Gaza. Some Israeli generals contend that Israel has already achieved all its goals there, save the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas and others. Persuading Mr. Netanyahu to announce that he will end the war once the hostages are released would be a significant achievement, allowing for the humanitarian project and reconstruction to begin. This needs to be a U.S. priority.
Stabilizing Lebanon, Containing the Houthis in Yemen
The Biden administration’s recently negotiated ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah will help relieve some of the region’s tensions. But the work on that account is not done. The success of the ceasefire and long-term security of Israel and stability of Lebanon will depend on strong enforcement of the agreement’s provisions. Your administration should take stock of what it and U.S. allies and partners can do to help rebuild Lebanon, to ensure Hezbollah cannot threaten its neighbors or intimidate the people of Lebanon ever again. That will mean ensuring that Hezbollah is ultimately disarmed and that adequate measures are in place to ensure it cannot rearm. Moreover, a concerted effort led by the U.S. and joined by other nations, such as France and moderate Arab states, should consider stepping up support for strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces and righting an economy in perilous decline. Hezbollah’s unnecessary war with Israel proved to the people of Lebanon that the terrorist organization was only concerned with its own survival as a proxy for Iran. International collaboration in rebuilding the economy of Lebanon will demonstrate that Hezbollah has no interest in or ability for improving the lives of Lebanon’s people.
The Houthis remain a pernicious presence in the Red Sea, effectively blocking most commercial traffic through a major global checkpoint. Aerial bombing missions and ship-launched missile attacks by the U.S. and a few cooperating nations have had only modest impact. Stronger measures, short of introducing U.S. ground forces, and the participation of other nations’ forces are necessary. Increased sanctions enforcement might help but only marginally. Another option worth exploring is the imposition of a blockade of all but humanitarian goods into the tribally contentious nation. It would take time to have a measurable effect, but choking off the weapons flow into the country is a pivotal step toward reducing the threat.
Desperate for peace but poised for greater conflict, the Middle East will demand the new administration’s constant attention. Its conflicts and tensions require especially careful management to find effective solutions and also avoid getting drawn into a conflict, when existential demands loom just over the horizon in Asia and Europe. That will require your administration’s extensive cooperation with regional partners as well as other allies, wise and persistent American diplomacy, and prudent but overpowering use of force. But only when required.