The National Interest Foundation Newsletter
Issue 207, September 22, 2023
Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s headlines: we analyze the effects the recent prisoner exchange will have on U.S.-Iran relations, look into Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States and the protests that followed him, examine the status of the negotiations between Saudi and Houthi forces, and delve into how the conflict in Libya contributed to the death toll in the recent flood.
US-Iran Prisoner Swap
The Prisoner Swap and Its Effect on the US-Iran Relationship
By Brenna Haggerty
After two years of careful negotiations, Iran and the United States have officially completed a prisoner exchange. The deal, mediated by Qatar, with help from Oman and Switzerland, is a rare success in Iranian-American diplomacy. The United States saw the safe return of five citizens, while five Iranians convicted of nonviolent crimes in the United States received clemency. In addition, the United States unfroze six billion dollars of Iranian oil revenue that was held due to sanctions. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi has declared the swap a humanitarian action and a step upon which other actions can be taken. The transfer of prisoners was set into motion when South Korea sent the funds to Qatar, which will monitor the use of the money. The unfrozen assets are for humanitarian use only, and if they are misappropriated, the United States will move to block the funds.
Tensions between Iran and the United States have been heightened since 2018 when then-president Donald Trump left the Iran nuclear deal, officially named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). When President Biden took office, he promised to revive the JCPOA, but negotiations became complicated by Iran’s violent crackdown on protestors and the accusations that they provided Russia with drones for use in the war with Ukraine. It was also difficult for the U.S. to rebuild the trust lost between the two negotiating parties. Iran still feared that if another deal was made the U.S. would simply pull out again. Because of this, Biden maintained the sanctions placed on Iran. In the wake of the prisoner exchange, the Biden administration announced that it would introduce new sanctions under the Levinson Act for Iran’s acts of wrongful detainment. These sanctions will target former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his alleged involvement in the disappearance of former FBI agent Robert Levinson sixteen years ago and the Ministry of Intelligence for its role in arresting and interrogating Americans in prison. In his statement, Biden also promised to continue imposing sanctions for Iran’s “provocative actions in the region.” This announcement comes just days after the one-year anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death where the United States announced an increase in sanctions on Iran for their human rights abuses.
Since the deal was announced, there has been immense backlash from the Republican Party for ceding to Iran and “paying ransom” for the prisoners. Some Republicans claim that, by unfreezing funds, this deal will encourage Iran to detain more Americans in the future. There has also been misinformation spread about the origin of these funds. The Biden administration emphasizes that the frozen funds were Iranian assets and that they will be carefully monitored by Qatar and the United States. Aside from Republican criticism, the deal has received widespread praise as a “step in the right direction.” Sayyid Badr Al-Busaidi, the Foreign Minister of Oman, believes this deal may create an avenue for peace in the region. In Iran, reactions varied. In the ultraconservative newspaper Keyhan, the headline read, “America Kneels Before Iran.” In the reformist Shargh newspaper, however, the exchange was deemed a “positive diplomatic step.” Aside from any political bias, the deal was well-received in Tehran overall.
The exchange has stirred up debate about the future of the Iran nuclear deal now that diplomatic relations seem to be improving. Amidst the speculation, U.S. officials have made it clear that the prisoner swap deal is separate from all other talks with Iran, including the nuclear issue. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken emphasized that the exchange does not “speak to anything else in the relationship.” While many analysts agree that the deal is a promising step forward, revival of the Iran nuclear deal is unlikely. Even if this exchange does open up diplomatic channels between Iran and the United States, there would still be many hurdles to reestablishing the JCPOA. The United States still has a number of sanctions implemented against Iran. There is also still a massive anti-western sentiment in Iran. A single diplomatic success cannot erase that. The prisoner exchange deal appears to have been purely transactional and does not seem to signal progress toward the renewal of the JCPOA.
The timing of the prisoner exchange deal further prevents progress with the nuclear deal. With the 2024 presidential election looming, the Biden administration is focusing all of its energy on reelection. The administration will protect itself, and that means avoiding uncertain entanglements with foreign countries. There are few U.S. relationships more uncertain than the connection with Iran. Over 80% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Iran. Biden does not want to make concessions to Iran before the election, because it would invite harsh Republican attacks and lower his overall popularity. Iran will likely also hold back from making any agreements to maintain some leverage if Trump wins the vote. Biden’s best path forward is to come to an unofficial understanding with Iran that can reduce tension while capitalizing on this diplomatic momentum. The JCPOA is currently unsustainable, but Biden can still make some progress with an unwritten agreement.
Netanyahu’s Visit to the US
Protests Follow Netanyahu Overseas
By Colin Bailey
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faced heavy protests over his proposed judiciary changes to the Israeli government during his visit to the United States. Netanyahu, who made multiple stops around the United States, is expected to meet with President Joe Biden in Manhattan in their first cordial meeting since Netanyahu reclaimed office back in December 2022. The proposed judiciary changes in Israel have been of ongoing discussion in the country, sparking mass protests within the nation for several consecutive months.
Already, thousands of individuals across San Francisco have taken to the streets as Netanyahu arrived at America’s tech capital to meet with Elon Musk, the owner of X, formally known as Twitter, to discuss anti-Semitism on the platform along with the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). Protestors lined the streets of Netanyahu’s motorcade through San Jose in condemnation of the leader. The phrase, “Welcome to Alcatraz Bibi” (Netanyahu’s nickname) was projected onto the Alcatraz Prison walls.
Netanyahu met with President Biden for the first time since regaining power at the United Nations General Assembly. In their meeting, Biden invited Netanyahu to the White House for the first time since Netanyahu returned to power to continue discussing Israel’s governmental reform. In the 11 months that Netanyahu has been back in power, Biden has not once requested his presence, which is unusual in Israeli-American policy. This extended absence of a face-to-face meeting largely stems from Biden’s disapproval of Netanyahu’s judiciary plans.
The first component of Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul that went into effect this July has caused a considerable divide among the Israeli populace. What the opposition has described as a “power grab,” the “reasonableness bill has removed the Supreme Court’s (and lower courts) ability to strike down governmental decisions deemed “extremely unreasonable.” This will dismantle the balance of power in the Israeli government, effectively giving the majority party or coalition authority to enact radical forms of legislation.
Beyond this, Netanyahu’s government wants to pass further legislation that would weaken the power of the Supreme Court to throw out new legislation giving the Knesset considerable control over policymaking should a majority be in place. Opponents of the policy fear that this would dismantle Israeli democracy because it would leave the judiciary system with little say in policymaking, undermining the current system of checks and balances.
Defenders of the judicial overhaul have argued that the way the judicial branch is in place today is a relic of the past and is an unnecessary roadblock preventing the government from installing any reasonable level of change. In the past, Israel’s Supreme Court has struck down many bills supporting liberal values. Many have regarded Netanyahu’s government as the most ‘far-right’ government in Israel’s history. Many of Netanyahu’s opponents regard him as a “wannabe authoritarian leader.” Outside of discussions for the judiciary overhaul, the two political leaders discussed the “normalization” efforts between Israel and Saudi Arabia, to which Netanyahu remarked, “I think such a peace would go a long way for us to advance the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, achieve reconciliation between the Islamic world and the Jewish state and advance a genuine peace between Israel and the Palestinians.” Mending the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been a policy priority of the Biden administration for the past year. Said normalization policies have been pushed in hopes that more significant economic connections between Israel and its neighbors will be yet another step towards lasting peace in the region. Recent statements by Saudi Arabia have indicated some progress on this front, but both countries are still far from normalization.
Protests followed Netanyahu to New York. On Wednesday, New York The protestors in New York City were predominantly made up of the American Jewish community chanting “Protect our democracy,” in reference to the judiciary changes in Israel that would see the Supreme Court lose power. It has been regarded by many as a way for Netanyahu to gain control over the government. Activists in NYC held up signs urging President Biden to denounce Netanyahu and that “Netanyahu does not represent Israel.” Many of the protesters present have also been calling for the outright resignation of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The protestors across the United States are making it loud and clear, that many in the Jewish community in the United States do not see kindly to Netanyahu’s policies. The protests in Israel have been more intense, with tens of thousands of activists marching in the streets every month. Many worry for the nation’s state as hundreds of military reservists have vowed not to show up due to the changes. Despite all the domestic and international activism, Netanyahu seems hard-set on moving forward with his judicial reform. It is important to note that even with all of the protests in Israel and abroad, there is still a large base of conservative Israelis who support the changes.
Addressing this issue has been relatively low on Biden’s foreign policy to-do list, opting to steer clear of the political quagmire. The administration seems to be focusing most of its time and energy on creating a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is very unlikely Biden will move to take more concrete actions against Netanyahu’s government, especially with an upcoming election. Following the meeting, the White House stated that Biden, “reiterated his concern about any fundamental changes to Israel’s democratic system, absent the broadest possible consensus.” It is more likely that we will see more softball comments in an attempt to appease the more left-leaning members of the Democratic Party.
Yemen Negotiations
The Status of Houthi-Saudi Negotiations
By Jacob Van Veldhuizen
Hopes are high as the five-day meeting between Houthi and Saudi negotiators. This meeting marked the first time Houthi delegates have traveled to Saudi Arabia for negotiations. These are a separate precursor to the larger-scale UN-moderated negotiations. The goal has been to create a preliminary agreement to create a foundation for a more comprehensive peace deal. Participants and observers alike think the meeting went well. Though no agreement was reached, forward progress was made on some of the key sticking points. The main hurdles that remain include creating a timeline for foreign troops to exit Yemen, creating a mechanism to pay public wages, and lifting the Saudi embargo on air and sea ports controlled by the Houthis. The talks seemed to end on a positive note with both sides claiming to have made progress. Future talks are to take place “very soon.”
The situation on the ground has been relatively unchanged. There was a fragile truce, but small skirmishes were still fairly common. The truce originally went into effect in April 2022 but ended on October 2. Despite this, fighting has not escalated. The military situation in Yemen remains relatively stable. There is still military activity on the front line. The citizens on the ground remain very skeptical of the peace talks. Many Yemeni people have yet to see any sort of benefit from the ongoing peace talks.
Saudi Arabia’s main goal seems to be to extract itself from the conflict. There are multiple reasons why they want to remove themselves. The first is this war has been counterproductive to Saudi Arabia’s recent efforts to rebrand itself. There are multiple instances where the Gulf state has faced criticism for their actions in the war, including the killing of Yemeni civilians. The second reason comes from increasing pressure from the United States to pull out of the war. They have linked some military aid to Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal from the war. This further motivates Saudi Arabia to remove itself from the conflict. The third reason is simply because this conflict is expensive to fight. As Saudi Arabia looks to expand and diversify its economy, it makes sense to opt for peace. This option would allow Saudi Arabia to divert funds to its economic endeavors.
Saudi-Iranian rapprochement also seemed to have played some type of role. The Houthi forces are widely seen as a proxy of Iran and the larger conflict as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The recent China-brokered deal may have at the very least assisted in starting negotiations.
These negotiations should be applauded, but there are still some potential issues that must be addressed. The first and foremost is that these preliminary negotiations are between only the Houthis and the Saudis. There are many other groups, including the internationally recognized government, that were not present. It is very important to at least include all parties in negotiations, especially if they are primarily to build a foundation for a more comprehensive peace deal. Waiting to include these groups until the larger negotiations. Another potential issue that needs to be addressed is that Saudi Arabia could make a separate peace with the Houthis. This would be a faster and easier way out of the conflict than participating in the UN-led negotiations. If Saudi Arabia elected to do this, there would be potential consequences. The first is that the Houthis would launch an attack on the now weakened government forces, escalating the conflict. It would likely be drawn out for many months and increase the already high death toll. Another potential consequence is that the withdrawal of Saudi Arabia would also harm the chances of finding a comprehensive peace agreement during the UN negotiations. It would significantly shift the power dynamic. This shift would require the parties to shift negotiating strategies and expectations, leading to longer conflict.
These issues are easily fixed. The first and most important thing is to begin including all parties in the negotiations, even if they are preliminary. Saudi Arabi must also be pressured to not take the easy way out, or if they do, at least make parts of the agreement conditional on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement.
From a humanitarian and strategic standpoint, continued pressure on Saudi Arabia to bring about an end to the conflict in Yemen is beneficial to the United States. This being said, caution should still be exercised and contingency plans put into place. There are many things outside of the United States’ control that could throw a wrench into negotiations. The Biden administration must do everything in its power to ensure negotiations go smoothly.
Flood in Libya
How the Conflict Contributes to the Flood Crisis in Libya
By Loretta Wolchko
Last week, Africa saw one of its worst natural disasters in history. Storm Daniel, now dubbed the deadliest weather event of 2023 so far, hit Libya on September 10. The port city of Derna fell victim to the worst of the destruction after two dams broke and released tsunami-like rushes of water into the city. It is estimated that more than 10,000 Libyans in Derna are missing and roughly 4,000 are confirmed dead. Since the storm has subsided, many Libyans have taken to the streets to protest the authorities. It is widely speculated that if the government had taken action and improved the city infrastructure, primarily the dams, the damage would not have been nearly as catastrophic. It raises the question of if this was simply another tragic natural disaster, or if some accountability should be taken for the magnitude of the damage.
A state of emergency was declared on September 9. The following day, all hell broke loose as thirty million cubic meters of water were released into the city. Derna and its inhabitants were defenseless as the equivalent of 12,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water flooded the city that was once their home. Entire neighborhoods have been washed away, with locals who survived telling news outlets that they are seeing bodies wash up on the streets because hospitals are too overwhelmed. International aid, both medical and military, has reached the area for rescue efforts and to set up makeshift hospitals.
According to city officials, the collapse of the first dam can be attributed to its height of only 70 meters. It was not nearly large enough to withstand the water coming in from the storm. Once the first dam collapsed, it was only a matter of time before the combination of the rain as well as the water that had collected broke the second dam. There was also a significant difference in elevation between the two dams, strengthening the force in which the water rushed down and resulting in the destruction the city is now experiencing. If the dams were maintained, it is unlikely that there would not have been any flooding at all, but the destruction and suffering experienced by Libyans would not have been as severe.
To explore the inaction of the Libyan government and how it contributed to the devastation in Derna requires an understanding of the current sociopolitical climate of Libya. The nation is presently undergoing a humanitarian crisis, which began in 2011 with the first civil war against the backdrop of the “Arab Spring” movement. Over the last decade, Libya has since seen another civil war and sustained use of violence from post-revolutionary groups. In addition, the country is torn amidst a power struggle between two acting prime ministers and their governments – the Government of National Unity (which is internationally recognized as legitimate) and the Government of National Stability (GNS). Derna is under the control of military commander Khalifa Haftar and overseen by the “eastern” government, the GNS. Haftar served in the Libyan military under dictator Muammar Gaddafi and later took part in his removal from the presidency. He has acted as a warlord ever since, controlling large areas of Libya.
Politicians in Libya, including the mayor of Derna, Abdulmenam al-Ghaithi have deemed the tragedy as simply that: a natural disaster of epic proportions that in no way could have been prevented. It is noted by various sources that Ghaithi has since reportedly been suspended from his position along with the members of his council, making him now the former mayor of the city. Following the tragedy, Ghaithi has announced that the death toll likely could have been even higher and that the floods perhaps could have caused 20,000 missing persons rather than the current estimate of 10,000. However, experts have cited that the corruption the nation has been experiencing contributed to the immense scale of the disaster.
The most blatant example of negligence from the government was that the dams that collapsed had not been maintained since 2002, during the rule of Gaddafi. Researchers and academics informed authorities throughout the years that the dams were not sound enough to withstand a potential flood, but no action has been taken to improve the infrastructure of the city in the event of an emergency (or in general to improve the living conditions of the city’s inhabitants). Additionally, because of the power struggle between the two provisional governments, funds are not properly allocated nor are budgets discussed or even put together. The divided state has been facing a variety of systemic issues for well over a decade, even before the revolution in 2011. Currently, one of Haftar’s sons is leading the disaster relief management. With the corruption so deeply ingrained into the governing of the failed state, it is not surprising to see the immense nonintervention and victim-blaming from those in charge.
Local authorities in Derna are taking the brunt of the blame for the inaction and negligence that resulted in the calamitous loss. Protesters have taken to what is left of the streets of the city to express their frustration over the tragedy. On Monday, crowds gathered at Ghaithi’s residence and set fire to his home. Others targeted parliament and held demonstrations at the Sabaha Mosque, a landmark in Derna.
Some Libyans hope that the disaster is what can bring the opposing governments together, unifying the people of their country, but authorities continue to brush off any accountability for the tragedy. They are urging their people to not place blame on any party and instead focus on recovery efforts. No real action is being taken to handle the systemic issues in Libya’s foundation. It seems that the hopes for a unified government will remain unlikely.
Enter the text or HTML code here