| | | | Dividing Up the Middle East | | Russia and the US "are attempting to divide the Middle East into spheres of influence," Zev Chafets suggests at Bloomberg, as the American, Russian, and Israeli national-security advisers met this week in Jerusalem to talk strategy. The "tacit agenda" was to broker US recognition of Russia's interests in Syria and Russian avoidance of US allies and attempts to build an anti-Iran coalition in the Gulf—all with Israel playing intermediary.
Such an agreement would be preferable, Chafets argues, calling Jared Kushner's Bahrain conference a "sideshow" to the power brokering in Jerusalem. Notably absent from this realist equation is Europe, which Judy Dempsey of the Carnegie Endowment writes has become a "bystander" in the region. | | Saudi Arabia's Reckless Path | | In a New York Review of Books essay, Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin detail the swift and aggressive moves of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman since his ascension: a protracted military campaign in Yemen, warming up to Israel, and (stalled) attempts to diversify the economy beyond oil. They also ask how long MBS's grip on power might hold.
The "rapidity and brutality of MBS's seizure of power appear to have preempted open dissent," they write. "Yet over the long term, his lack of judgment, defiance of tradition, and exceedingly narrow circle of advisers could make him vulnerable to isolation, tunnel vision, loss of elite support, and, finally, popular opposition. He could occupy the throne for decades, however, before dissatisfaction turns into effective resistance."
His American support could also be at risk, they write, as MBS has "tilted so far" toward the GOP that a Democratic successor might not look on him so favorably. | | As US and China Square Off, World Watches Uneasily | | | With the US and China locked in a trade war, Der Spiegel details how Europe is caught in the middle. Tariffs are biting third-country firms that produce in the US and China, and the standoff is forcing the rest of the world to take sides.
Some in Europe have called for multilateralism and engagement with China, even as the EU declares China a "systemic rival." Under any other US president, the choice would be easy, the authors write, but cooperation against China "would require [President] Trump to respect America's allies and ultimately to stick to his word." Instead, Trump "is threatening his European and Asian allies with the same methods he is using against China."
The trade war is causing broader unease, The Economist notes, describing the world economy as "on a knife-edge." Any "misstep by Mr Trump or Mr Xi ... leaves central banks hard-pressed to keep economies on an even keel," the magazine writes, with interest rates already low. | | Istanbul's Democracy Lesson | | The victory of opposition-party candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu's in Istanbul's mayoral rerun "shines a spotlight on authoritarian populists' biggest weakness," Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson write at Project Syndicate: "the ballot box." As authoritarians have risen in democratic systems, they write, today's strongman leaders are different from their predecessors. They hold onto power not through violence and military coups, but with polarizing politics. That leaves the new breed of autocrats ultimately vulnerable to being voted out.
As for İmamoğlu's opportunity once in office, he'll have a chance to boost his party through good governance, but he'll have a tall task ahead in a city that's "been squeezed to its limit" and where citizens are demanding real improvements, Paul Osterlund writes for Foreign Policy. | | America Needs a New War Strategy | | "For the first time in decades," Chris Dougherty writes in a report for the Center for a New American Security, "it is possible to imagine the United States fighting—and possibly losing—a large-scale war with a great power." Consequently, America needs a new war-fighting strategy, he argues.
Russia and China have spent decades formulating strategies to counter the American "way of war," which has centered on superior air power, rapid forward deployments, and massing troops in safe zones out of enemies' reach, among other hallmarks. With greater possibilities for asymmetric attack, and fewer overwhelming technological advantages, America's victory against one of those major powers is no longer certain. The US will be able to retain its advantage with sustained effort, Dougherty writes, though it will require a "difficult, but achievable" shift in strategic thinking. | | | | | | |
