President Barack Obama’s trip to Israel and the West Bank — his first during his time in the White House — will draw attention to a peace process that is currently going nowhere.

CAP’s Matthew Duss, who is currently in the region, is concerned that despite calls on all side for a new round of talks between Israel and Palestine, direct negotiations may wind up being counter-productive:

While the Obama administration and its partners in the Quartet on the Middle East—the group made up of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia, established in 2002—have stressed the importance of returning to direct talks over the past few years, some analysts I spoke with suggested that this may not be a good option at the moment. Given the level of frustration among Palestinians at their own government’s failure to deliver, it’s possible that the Palestinian Authority could not survive another round of failed negotiations.

In the near-term absence of further negotiations, Duss recommended the United States working quietly to address key issues to boost the Palestinian Authority’s credibility, including Palestinian prisoners in Israel and the on-going construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “It’s very important, however, that the Palestinian Authority not be supported simply with the aim of prolonging an unsustainable status quo,” Duss warns, noting the necessity of a permanent solution.

The last direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority last took place in 2010, with the declared goal of developing a framework for an agreement within a year. The talks fell apart in late Sept. 2010, when Israel’s partial moratorium of new settlement construction expired.

President Obama’s trip to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan will start next Wednesday and last until Saturday. While he is not expected to make any major policy announcements while there, his very presence is thought as an assist in revitalizing the peace process. According to Israel’s Channel 2, Secretary of State John Kerry will make a return trip to the region soon after Obama’s as part of a more substantive effort.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told constituents in a letter thanking them for supporting diplomacy between the United States and Iran that the Islamic Republic — contrary to available evidence — is enriching weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon and that unnamed “experts” have confirmed it.

“Thank you for contacting me to express your support for diplomacy between the United States and Iran,” the letter dated March 12, 2013 and signed by Schumer begins, adding, “I share your concern over the United States’ relationship with Iran and I am committed to supporting President Obama in advancing his diplomatic outreach.” But the letter later makes unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s nuclear program:

In the past decade, Iran has developed nuclear technologies which U.S. and other nations’ intelligence agencies believe are intended to produce nuclear weapons. In November of 2007, the Administration released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) giving evidence that Iran had operated a clandestine nuclear-weapons program until 2003. The nation continues to enrich uranium into weapons-grade nuclear materials in violation of United Nations resolutions, and in November of 2009 disclosed that it has a partially constructed enrichment facility near Qom. Although President Ahmadinejad maintains that these facilities are designed to generate civilian nuclear energy, experts say that the type of fuel that they produce is sufficient to arm a nuclear warhead.

It’s unclear what experts Schumer or his staff are referring to, but the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said that Iran has thus far only enriched uranium up to 20 percent purity, mainly for the purpose of medical research. “Weapons-grade” nuclear material is uranium that is enriched to 90 percent. While the IAEA and U.S. and Israeli intelligence believe the Iranians have not yet made the decision to go that far, U.S. officials have said they think Iran is keeping its options open. Indeed, as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, “I think they’re keeping themselves in a position to make that decision.” (Schumer’s office has not responded to inquires about the letter before publication of this story.)

“What I’ve said, and I will say today, is that the intelligence we have is they have not made the decision to proceed with the development a nuclear weapon,” then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said last month. In fact, Israeli intelligence officials have said that Iran’s nuclear program is, while progressing, “advancing slower than Iran had hoped,” in the words of Israeli military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi.
Read more

Two years after the first protests roiled through the streets of Syria’s cities, what was once another potential victory for the Arab Spring has turned into a long slog of the hardship and chaos of civil war as President Bashar al-Assad clings to power.

At the outset of the pro-democracy protests in Syria, headlines announced the deaths of demonstrators at the hands of state security forces in the single digits. As time wore on, more and greater violence was unleashed against civilians, including the use of armored vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft and mortars against whole neighborhoods. The result can be seen in the conflict’s staggering numbers:

• Syrians Killed: 70,000
• Refugees in Neighboring States: 1.1 million
• Internally Displaced People: 2.5 million
• U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Syria: $385 million
• Total Humanitarian Budget Shortfall: $700 million

Beyond the loss of life, as early as June 2011, Human Rights Watch was reporting on the Syrian government’s widespread use of torture, extrajudicial executions and detention of medical patients. The conditions have only worsened over time, with Syria’s rebel groups now also partaking in atrocities, as chronicled by a U.N. panel. The International Committee of the Red Cross on Friday appealed to world powers to press all-sides to end the atrocities against civilians and aid workers.

As the conflict enters its third year, the current debate on Syria revolves around whether Western powers should join states in the Persian Gulf in arming Syria’s rebels directly. The rebels now hold a large swath of territory in the north and west of the country, but frequently complain of their inability to counter the heavy arms the government can access. France and the United Kingdom on Thursday announced that they are willing to circumvent a European Union arms embargo on Syria, against the wishes of Germany. The concern remains, however, that the arms provided could fall into the hands of the several jihadist groups that have also joined in the fighting in Syria.

The United States has thus far refrained from sending arms, but has not taken a hands-off approach to the crisis. instead opting to send non-lethal aid — in the form of food, body armor, radios and other equipment — and military training. Rep. Elliot Engel (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has introduced a bill in the House to arm the rebels after all. Elliot’s bill, however, falls short of the desire of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and others in the Republican Party for the U.S. tomilitarily intervene directly in Syria.