December 5, 2007
“Secretary Rice says nice things about Lebanese democracy, but the fact is that nothing matters to her half as much as the peace process. This myopia is what led Rice to make room for Syria in her three-ring circus on the Chesapeake Bay. Since Israeli- Palestinian comity warrants all of the time and prestige of the Secretary of State, and since Damascus's friends in Hamas can make things very tough for peace processing, they must be rewarded for their blackmail and invited to Annapolis. Consciously or not, Rice signaled where America's real priorities lie--not with protecting a fledgling democracy in Beirut from the terrorist state next door, but in trying to reward a society that breeds terrorism within its own state.”
--Lee Smith, visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, “The Price of Annapolis - Lebanese Democracy,” The Daily Standard, November 30, 2007 
"There's been a very clear link in the past two weeks between the Lebanon crisis and Annapolis… It's part of a process that focuses again on the Arab-Israeli struggle. Definitely, it will have a positive impact on Lebanon."
--Ibrahim Hamidi, Al-Hayat’s bureau chief in Damascus, Lebanese Broadcasting Company’s correspondent and a frequent contributor to The Daily Star, November 27, 2007
Stay Informed
Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!
Support Middle East Progress
Original Commentaries
Setting the Record Straight
Eye Still on the Ball
“Adverse developments in Iraq will be (and will look to be) increasingly a function of the Obama Team taking their eye off of the ball and rushing to declare mission accomplished. Yes, in such a scenario the Iraqis should bear most of the blame, but the part that is due to U.S. action or inaction will be Obama's responsibility. And it will matter. Iraq is at the center of a region that every president since Jimmy Carter has identified as vital to our national security. Iraq is next door to, and the playground for mischief from, the most thorny national security challenge the United States faces: a nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian regime. These inconvenient facts mean that if the Iraqi situation demands more focused and costly U.S. attention, it will likely get it. At that point, what sort of domestic coalition will be available for President Obama's Iraq policy?”
—Peter Feaver, director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies; former director for defense policy and arms control, National Security Council, “Obama’s Iraq Speech: Another Missed Opportunity,” Foreign Policy, August 3, 2010
“Iraq is a strategically important place in the Middle East, just by its geographic location, by its population, by the influence it's had in the Middle East for a long time. So neighboring countries from around the Middle East have an interest inside of Iraq.
“But I will tell you that I think Iraqis themselves are nationalistic in nature, and that's why it's important. A strong Iraq will defend itself against interference from outside countries, and I think as we build a strong Iraq and as we continue to build a strong security mechanism and as we continue to help them economically and diplomatically, that will make it less likely of others from the outside being able to interfere.
“Now, for the vacuum as we see today, again, I remind everyone is that we still have a significant presence here, and we are not going to—we will not allow undue maligned influence on the Iraqi government as they attempt to form their government. What we're trying to do is provide them the space and time for them to do that, and we will continue to do that post 1 September. We'll still have a significant civilian presence, and again, we'll still have 50,000 troops on the ground here to ensure that this government can be formed by the Iraqis. And that all the other nations respect their sovereignty as they go about forming their government.”
—General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, interview, “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour, August 8, 2010
Middle East Analysis
Upcoming Events