POMED Notes: “Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa

On Tuesday, June 5, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled “Obama’s Failed Syria Policy.” Mr. Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Ms.Danielle Pletka, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Dr. Jon Alterman, Director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, testified. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), presided.
For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.
 
On Tuesday, June 5, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled “Obama’s Failed Syria Policy.” Mr. Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Ms.Danielle Pletka, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Dr. Jon Alterman, Director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, testified. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), presided.
In her opening statement, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen said the delayed response from the Obama Administration to support the popular uprising in Syria at the onset and in calling for Bashar al-Assad’s removal allowed for extremist groups and Al-Qaeda affiliates to co-opt the movement “setting up the bloody conflict we see everyday.” She added that we need a political solution in Syria and must work with our allies in the region who fear the repercussions of a protracted conflict. Additionally, she argued that the U.S. must address the serious issue of Moscow continuing to arm the regime, which has escalated the conflict and propped up Assad, whereby she introduced H.R. 893, The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act, that would address the issue head-on. Ros-Lehtinen was also opposed to arming the opposition claiming, “[they] are too fractured, too convoluted to be able to ensure that the arms don’t eventually end up in the wrong hands that may one day turn these weapons against us our allies, like Israel.” Lastly, Ros-Lehtinen rebuked Obama’s inaction in light of his “red line” statement  after evidence suggests that chemical weapons have been used, which she argues sends the wrong message to those “who seek to test our will.” During the opening statement by Ranking Member Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), he remarked that the hearing should be a productive discussion for progressing U.S. foreign policy on Syria, arguing that the U.S. should pursue a negotiated settlement. He further commented on Syria’s impact on the entire Middle East and argued that our assistance should be used as a tool to encourage the fractured opposition leadership to “get their act together.” He also claimed that there are real steps the U.S. can take to address the humanitarian crisis, including a humanitarian court order to provide aid to those in need as well as pushing international donors to fulfill their promises. He further commented that it is the U.S.’s duty to support opposition groups that share our goals and values and that the Obama Administration should use its leverage with Turkey and Qatar to prevent them from arming extremist groups.
Rep. Steve Chabot’s (R-OH) opening remarks primarily concerned the increased role Hezbollah has played in Syria, as well as over the stability of Jordan, which currently hosts over 160,000 refugees in the al-Zataari camp alone. In Rep. Gerry Connolly’s (D-VA) opening statement, he commented that there are four concerns to think about in regards to Syria. The first being “who do we support?;” the second is concern for the spread of the crisis regionally; third, Russia’s role in “blatantly re-arming the Assad regime;” and fourth, the possible use of chemical weapons.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s (R-IL) remarks were far more critical of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy in general, expressing his frustration with “America ceding its role of leadership around the world,” especially in the Middle East and in Syria in particular, as well as through strategies like “leading from behind.” He argued that the United States is looking for “the easy way out” when it comes from engagement in the region, and that when the United States retreats from the world, “chaos ensues.” By contrast, Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) was most concerned with Syria’s territorial integrity post-civil war, and expressed the strategic significance securing Syria’s weapons of mass destruction, helping regional allies like Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and the Gulf States build their own security in response to the conflict
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) briefly remarked that he was interested in hearing feedback about how the U.S. can help fix the situation so that we “don’t repeat the errors of our foreign policies over the last 30 years.” Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) echoed concerns over Assad’s support Iran, recent arms sales from Russia, and Hezbollah’s role in the crisis. He was curious to hear about the prospects for peace talks in Geneva and what the ramifications of a failed negotiation would be. Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) commented that he was interested in hearing insights from the witnesses in order to determine what the appropriate policy for the U.S. is.
Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) expressed her desire to discuss potential “new avenues” for resolving the conflict.  She then focused her remarks on two undiscussed aspects related to the Syrian conflict: the first was related to Hezbollah’s financing and how disrupting its efforts and flow of funds “might affect the organization.” Her second question related to Syria’s Kurdish population.  As she attested, “the Kurds are organized, well-financed, and relatively pro-American.” Kurds are not a panacea to the Syrian problem but I wonder whether we could be doing more with them, particularly in light of recently improved Turkish and Kurdish relations,” she added.
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) stated, “It is not a question of beating the Assad regime and handing it over to the good guys,” adding that the opposition is made up of at least eight different groups and is highly fragmented. He remarked that we cannot get involved in another civil war in the Middle East; he argued the U.S. cannot always nation build in the Middle East and oftentimes they have to figure it out for themselves. Contrastingly, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) remarked that “one thing is clear: I believe the global community must respond.” He further added that he hopes to focus on a response that provides humanitarian aid, addresses the refugee crisis, incorporates a global strategy to end the violence and promotes stability in the Middle East.
Tony Badran gave the first opening testimony from the witness panel, opening that the war in Syria has “metastasized” along predictable lines. He also added that discussion of the conflict outside of Syria, especially in the United States, focuses mainly on whether or not foreign powers should intervene in the country and what that intervention would like. Mr. Badran suggested that if the fact that President Bashar al-Assad is the main problem, then the U.S. should do whatever is necessary to destroy him and his regime.  If Iran’s role is the key problem, the U.S. should focus on them, such as by targeting the channels they use to support the regime.  Mr. Badran identified Iran’s role as the key issue for the United States at the moment in Syria, and suggested that the U.S. target Syrian air fields to disrupt their ability to funnel arms into the country, as well as work through regional allies like Turkey and Jordan to aid the rebels in combating Iran’s presence.
Danielle Pletka argued in her opening testimony that the war is not just the rebels versus the regime, its a war that includes Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf States, al-Qaeda, and other armed groups, however, that long list of factions still lacks the major western democracies. Pletka also commented that the United States’ inaction in Syria has hurt President Obama’s credibility. Pletka argued that mistakes like setting red lines and then not sticking to them harms the United States’ ability to project power and assert political influence overseas. She put forth four necessary courses of action: vetting and then arming rebels who embrace democratic norms, using stand-off weaponry to disable Syrian airfields and render inoperable their air force, consideration of imposing a no-fly zone with, and  imposing new sanctions on Hezbollah.
Jon Alterman opened by stating that Syria is strategically important because it is a hub state, with influence that reaches into the Levant, the Gulf and into the Caucasus and Central Asia. All five of Syria’s neighbors, he added, are important to the United States. In response to the Syrian crisis, Alterman proposed five courses of action: establishing safe havens to protect civilian populations on both sides of Syria’s borders, providing limited weapons for civilians own self-defense, engage in more aggressive diplomacy, work on intelligence sharing, and negotiate a settlement for the transfer of power. “We must pursue a policy that meets those needs for Syria while being attendant to the other demands placed on our military and our government,” he concluded.
Ros-Lehtinen commenced the discussion by asking two pointed questions, one regarding the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria and what the U.S.’s response should be, and the second regarding how to convince Russia to stop arming the regime. Ms. Pletka said the only way to contain the use of chemical weapons would be to put U.S. troops on the ground and secure them ourselves, which she notes that “none of us want to do.” Dr. Alterman briefly commented on the Russian issue claiming “Russians have a serious concern with terrorism and jihadism in the Caucasus, we might have things we can help them with.” He added that we should be negotiating with them better and appealing to their higher interests.
Rep. Deutch continued the discussion inquiring about what a resolution in Syria would look like and asking whether the borders would remain the same. Dr. Alterman responded saying de jure, the borders in Syria would remain intact but de facto, there will be some changes and there will be some diffusion of power. He argued, however, that we should not assume that the Geneva convention will have a solution, instead claiming “we’re going to have to work on a process of dealing with the issues in Syria.” Afterwards, Rep. Chabot asked a question regarding the role of Hezbollah in the conflict. Mr. Badran claimed they were leading on all political fronts but that they have suffered some losses. Ms. Pletka added that they are the “best armed, most sophisticated terrorist group in the world,” and we need to be worried about “de-fanging” them. Dr. Alterman finally argued that we should work on discrediting Hezbollah in Lebanon, which could help serve American interests.
Following Rep. Chabot’s question, Rep. Connolly expressed concern over Ms. Pletka’s argument to vet and arm the opposition using CIA intelligence. He rebutted that disaggregating between providing weapons to extremists and jihadists and those rebels who share American democratic values. Contrastingly, Rep. Kinzinger argued that the U.S. should get involved and that “a strong United States is a stabilizing force around the globe.” He later asked about what message the U.S.’s policy in Syria has sent to Iran. Ms. Pletka responded saying the message to Iran is very clear: the U.S. is not serious about our “red lines” or “imposing our will.” Dr. Alterman added that the greatest threat to our standing in the world is our inability to make decisions about our priorities and commitments.
Rep. Schneider asked the question about arming the rebels, and what would happen if those arms ended up in the hands of the wrong people. Mr. Badran responded claiming that there should be a two-pronged approach: we should work with Turkish intelligence in the North and Jordanian and Saudi Arabian intelligence in the South, as a conduit to set-up local forces and secondly, to administer specific tactical systems that can be used for specific tactical missions thereby mitigating unwanted outcomes. Dr. Alterman added that an unwanted outcome of arming the rebels will depend on what we arm them with. Rep. Cotton continued the discussion by asking whether Assad staying in power would be worse or an al-Nusra-lead front toppling the regime. Ms. Pletka argued that the worst scenario would be Assad remaining in power and that the power has tipped in his favor, which is worrisome. She added that a post-Assad Syria is what we should also be focusing on in order to avoid the “bad guys” taking over.
Rep. Weber simply asked each witness to state three things that the U.S. should do in Syria. Mr. Badran argued that we should (1) take out supply lines that Iran is using to supply the regime, (2) work with Turkish and Jordanian intelligence to start working with local groups and (3) stay open about the fact that the conflict will not end until Assad resigns. Ms. Pletka claimed that we should (1) pick a “winner” and vet them with CIA intelligence and (2) impose costs on those aiding the “bad guys.” Dr. Alterman argued that (1) We should focus on protecting our allies and making sure they do not undermine our efforts, (2) remain attendant on the Jihadist threat in Syria and (3) focus on Iran. With his time, Rep. Higgins argued that “there are limitations in what the U.S. can impose on people.” Thus the issue in Syria is not trying to figure out who are the “good guys” and “bad guys,” but understanding the extent to which the United States can engage Syria in the long term. He yielded the rest of his time to the chair.
Rep. Yoho remarked that the constitution does not advocate for interventionist policies, saying that they are “a dangerous thing.” He added that he was worried by Ms. Pletka’s willingness to establish a “fly-over,” inquiring whether it could guarantee not involving an all-out war with “Iran, Russia and maybe China.” Ms. Pletka assured him that a no-fly zone would not lead to a war with Iran, Russia and China. Dr. Alterman added that he believes intervention, at this point, is required. Rep. Cicilline asked whether arming the resistance is practical and if we have the capacity to vet “over a hundred armed forces” on the ground and to ensure that they prevail. Ms. Pletka responded that she trusts the CIA when they say they have the capability of vetting them and Mr. Badran reiterated his “two-pronged approach” that he mentioned earlier.
Congresswoman Lois Frankel (D-FL) asked to what extent the conflict could spill over and affect allies like Jordan and Turkey, thus putting more pressure “on the United States to intervene.” Mr. Bardan argued that the role Hezbollah has played in directing the conflict, Iran’s deployment of strategic weapons inside Syria, and Assad’s assets committing terrorist attacks within Turkey, the conflict is already a regional one where Turkey especially needs to defend its strategic interests. Dr. Alterman agreed, and argued that the spillovers and other wider consequences of the conflict in Syria are even more significant for “small countries [like} Lebanon and Jordan” simply because of their limited resources to deal with them. Rep.
Rob DeSantis (R-FL) expressed his concerns over foreign Jihadist fighters fighting in Syria on both sides. Dr. Alterman echoed DeSantis’s concerns, citing France’s concerns over the 400 French nationals fighting in Syria. However, he also argued that the United States still has a stake in dictating the outcome of the conflict. Finally, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asked what would be the best way to identify and arm potential partners among the rebels. Mr. Badran argued that the U.S. already supplies some groups with non-lethal aid, so they should be trusted with tactical weapons. Allies like Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar can also help identify partners, and that there are Islamist elements in Syria that can help. Ms. Pletka agreed, saying that the U.S. often does arm actors that run counter to our democratic interests and that so called “secular” and “democratic-minded” militias are often not so.
With that, Rep. Chabot adjourned the hearing.