The resolution of the conflict is a U.S. national interest and we applaud the Obama administration’s ambitious vision of achieving an agreement within a year, as well as its continued emphasis on the importance of such an agreement, as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell said, “in terms of dealing with other conflicts in the region.”

As all the parties move into this critical next stage, it is necessary to keep an eye on a few key factors: the parameters of the negotiations, the role of the United States and regional parties, the accountability mechanisms put in place to ensure that all sides are living up to their commitments, and continued progress on efforts to improve security and the economy as well as building Palestinian institutions.

We should also expect that with renewed negotiations, there will be efforts to run the process off the rails by those who do not want to see a viable, agreed-upon solution. We encourage all parties to show the flexibility, courage, and persistence to come to an agreement and, with the support of the United States, work together to ensure that rejectionists on either side do not exercise a veto over the aspirations of both peoples to live in peace and security.

Additional Administration Diplomatic and Security Efforts
In May, President Obama asked Congress to approve $205 million for Israel’s Iron Dome system. Additionally, among other defense cooperation efforts, the United States continues to ensure Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge; it provided Israel with $2.775 billion per year in security assistance in FY 2010; and recently concluded a 1,000 person joint military exercise, the largest ever between the countries.

Following the raid on the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the six-vessel flotilla attempting to break the maritime closure of the Gaza Strip, President Obama supported a United Nations Security Council statement on June 1 which condemned the actions aboard the flotilla and called for an impartial investigation. Obama described the Gaza situation and broader conflict as unsustainable in the long-term. On June 14, the White House declared its support for an internal Israeli investigation into the flotilla incident. Israel responded to mounting international pressure by easing the blockade on June 20, a move applauded by the United States. Details of the plan were publicized on July 5, coinciding with a meeting between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

President Abbas visited the White House on June 9. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on June 23 and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Obama in Washington on July 6, his fifth visit during the Obama administration. On July 8, Obama sat for an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 television network and on July 9, Obama spoke with Abbas on the phone about the situation in the region.

Bottom-Up Track
The Obama administration works in close coordination with the international community and the Office of the Quartet Representative to support the institution-building work of the PA. Examples of this work include:

Economic Sector: The United States provided financial, organizational and promotional support for the June 2-3 Palestine Investment Conference (PIC), which culminated with France, Italy and the United States pledging a combined $655 million for institution building in the West Bank. In addition, during Abbas’ White House visit, the United States announced $400 million to the PA for housing, education and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Two-hundred and forty million dollars of this amount is allocated for the creation of a landmark affordable mortgage finance facility which will double the number of Palestinians able to purchase homes.

Security Sector: The United States continues to coordinate with Britain, Canada and Jordan in training Palestinian security forces; five battalions have already deployed in major West Bank cities. The United States is also supporting ongoing efforts to build and upgrade PA training centers and other installations, and assisting the PA Interior Ministry with strategic security planning.

Governance: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supports ongoing projects that promote democracy and governance in the Palestinian territories. On June 2, USAID pledged $25 million to facilitate PA efforts to develop a legislative and regulatory framework to promote investment and commerce.

Movement and Access: In May, USAID gave authority over three reconstructed roads to the PA. Reconstruction cost $5.7 million and included work on the Atarah-Ramallah road, which connects the northern West Bank to Ramallah. USAID and Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell are continuing to work with the Israeli Ministry of Defense to improve movement and access at checkpoints and border crossings.

Regional Track
- In addition to previously mentioned visits by Israeli and Palestinian officials, heads of state from Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey also visited Washington to discuss regional and bilateral issues.
- Vice President Joseph R. Biden visited Egypt on June 6 to discuss new ways forward on the Gaza blockade. The next day Egypt declared that it would keep its Rafah checkpoint open indefinitely to allow eligible Gazans to cross the border.
- Robert Ford’s confirmation to be the first U.S. ambassador to Syria since the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005 was delayed because of speculation that Syria provided Hezbollah with long-range Scud missiles. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry visited Damascus on May 23 to discuss these concerns. In early July, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus. Ynet reported that Specter delivered a message from Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to Assad during his visit.

For more information on the Obama administration’s efforts towards Middle East peace before March see our background basics from March 23 and September 22.

To an American audience, it might resonate that way. Less so to Iraqis. Unlike last year, Iraqi officials, mired in disputes often more personal than political, are not trumpeting the withdrawal as an assertion of an Iraqi authority. …

Saud al-Saadi, an eloquent and informed teacher in Sadr City, was aware [of the deadline]. But, he said, he had heard such pronouncements before, declarations of turning points in America’s experience here that seemed to hew to the logic of American politics. The American occupation was declared over before the 2004 presidential election. The two countries signed strategic agreements weeks before the Bush administration ended. “But until now, to tell you the truth, we haven’t grasped our sovereignty,” Mr. Saadi said. “There are still American troops here, they still raid houses, we don’t have a government that makes its own decisions and the American ambassador still interferes.”

Mr. Saadi was neither angry nor disillusioned. And in his matter-of-fact appraisal, there was a hint of common ground between a teacher and a president. Mr. Obama did not trumpet democracy or victory. There was no reference to a mission accomplished. In a sober appraisal, he acknowledged that there would be more American sacrifice here. Access the full article>>

The first source of increased complexity is the nature of the electoral coalitions and hence the election results in 2010. In 2006, the grand Shiite electoral alliance won 47 percent of the parliamentary seats and it was clear that this entity would nominate the prime minister. In 2009, Prime Minister Maliki split from the unified “Shia house” to form his own separate list, the State of Law (SoL). This consequential decision resulted in the inconclusive nature of the March 2010 election results … The closeness of the results has left it unclear which bloc will nominate the prime minister, has stimulated electoral appeals and constitutional disputes over government formation procedures, and has led to painstaking coalition-building efforts.

Stepping back from the intricacies of government formation, the second source of complexity is the experience of the last four years. As one parliament member (MP) in the State of Law list frankly admitted, the prime minister position has grown in importance so as to “dominate everything.”

The manner in which this enhanced power has been wielded—much as Maliki’s broadly popular campaign against the Sadrists’ Mahdi Army in 2008 or the establishment of special military units that report directly to the prime minister’s office—has been widely noted across the political spectrum. The bottom line is that the authority of the premiership has increased—thus making the compensation prize of other posts less appealing.

Finally, the complexity of the government formation process in 2010 results from increased involvement of regional actors. Many Iraqis view neighboring countries as vying to fill the space left by the declining American presence in Iraq. … This interference is generally resented by Iraqis who perceive their neighbors as taking advantage of Iraq’s difficult circumstances in order to secure their own interests in a country that has historically been of pivotal importance to the region and has tremendous energy potential. Access the full article>>

Yet politicians have since been unable to form a coalition government and plant the seeds of stability in their country, preferring to take their citizens hostage in their political rivalries, rather than to come to terms with each other. For them, Iraq has become a prized bull on which they have thrown a noose.

The results of this mad competition have become an all-too familiar sight. As political violence continues to take a toll on Iraqi civilians, we have grown accustomed to images of devastated streets in places like Baghdad and Fallujah and of traumatized Iraqis weeping among rubble and debris. …

The blame, arguably, was once squarely laid on the shoulders of a misguided U.S. leadership. But today, as Iraqis hold the reigns of their country anew, this responsibility has shifted, and it can be attributed first and foremost to the unwillingness of the Iraqi leaders to dream of their nation’s future as one. …

Iraq’s neighbors have unfortunately exacerbated the intensity of the country’s political quagmire by assisting proxies aligned with their sects rather than judging them on their ability to govern.

Competing politicians and powers will, however, eventually have to come to grip with reality: Iraq is indeed a prized bull, but one that is too big to be controlled by one. Access the full article>>

“There will be ongoing military cooperation as our relationship with Iraq evolves. For the time being, Iraqi security forces still require certain assistance with logistics and meeting some other operational requirements. While the remaining U.S. forces will continue to provide training and mentoring until their departure by the end of 2011, the hard work of maintaining security and stability is an Iraqi responsibility, and Iraqi forces are showing they are increasingly able to meet that responsibility. …

“We now look to Iraq’s leaders to take the steps that will complement the gains made in security. At the top of that list, in my view, is government formation. It has now been more than four months since the people of Iraq voted in national elections, and still no successor government is in place. This is an Iraqi matter, and I want to emphasize that the United States is not taking sides in the negotiations underway among the various parties. We are, however, stressing to political leaders that they must get on with the job. That means they must make compromises even if that requires giving up personal ambitions or partisan agendas. This process must result in the formation of a truly representative government that enjoys broad acceptance and meets the needs and aspirations of all Iraqis.

“While it is unsettling to see this government formation process drag on, it is an encouraging sign that Iraq’s political leaders are engaged in earnest discussions. The Iraqi people want movement on the major problems that still bedevil them in their daily lives, like electricity and water shortages, lack of employment opportunities, and corruption. There is a need for decisive government action across a broad range of national problems. But the Iraq of 2010 is not the Iraq of 2006, the last time we had a prolonged government formation process. Unlike in 2006, the dangerous power vacuum and violent instability that some predicted have not developed. The caretaker government continues to provide basic services and salaries, and the security forces continue to maintain stability on the streets. Iraq is better off than when I left it in 2005 and the elements necessary for Iraq’s success are present.”

A majority in the Parliament requires 163 of the 325 seats. According to the Iraqi constitution, the largest parliamentary bloc will choose the next prime minister. However, the constitution is unclear as to whether the largest bloc is defined as the bloc that won the most seats in the election or the coalition with a majority in Parliament.

Election Results
Iraqi National Movement (Iraqiya): 91 seats
State of Law: 89 seats
Iraqi National Alliance: 70 seats
Kurdistan Alliance: 43 seats
Change (Gorran): 8 seats
Iraqi Accordance (Tawafuq): 6 seats
Iraqi Unity (Bolani): 4 seats
Kurdistan Islamic Union: 4 seats*
Islamic Group of Kurdistan: 2 seats*
Designated for minorities: 8 seats
* results from Independent High Electoral Commission

Brief Description of Key Coalitions
Iraqi National Alliance (INA) - Formed before the March elections, the INA was built on the foundation of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), a coalition of Shia groups that won the most votes in 2005. The INA includes the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr Movement, the Sadr Movement, the Virtue Party, and other smaller Shi’a and Sunni parties. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Al-Maliki’s Dawa party, which was part of the UIA, did not join the INA. In the March elections, the INA won 70 seats. In early May, the INA and the State of Law coalition (headed by al-Maliki) formed a new coalition, called the National Coalition, in an attempt to break the deadlock over elections. This has so far proven unsuccessful, and the INA recently broke off talks with State of Law, saying they wanted to nominate another candidate for prime minister instead of al-Maliki. The supporters of Moktada al-Sadr, an influential Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army militia actively fought U.S. troops until two years ago, are still part of the INA. However, al-Sadr is opposed to al-Maliki’s re-election as prime minister. Sadr’s supporters won 39 out of the INA’s 70 seats.

Iraqi National Movement (Iraqiya) - Ayad Allawi, interim prime minister from June 2004 until the January 2005 elections, heads this largely secular and non-sectarian party. Iraqiya attracted the support of many Sunnis and is led by some high-ranking Sunni politicians including Tariq al-Hashemi, a former Iraqi vice president and head of the Renewal List. Two key politicians in the movement, Saleh Mutlak, head of the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, and Dhafir al-Ani, of the National Future Gathering, were barred from running by the Iraqi Justice and Accountability Commission because of their Baathist links.

State of Law Coalition - This coalition, led by current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is comprised of al-Maliki’s former Shi’ite Dawa party as well as parties from across ethnic and religious lines, including Sunni and secular groups. The party ran on a secular, nationalist platform. Since the election, it signed an agreement to merge with the other Shiite majority faction, Iraqi National Alliance, resulting in a new alliance within 4 seats of a parliamentary majority, but the INA recently broke off talks.

Democratic Patriotic Kurdistan Alliance - This coalition brings together the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The Kurdistan Alliance is led by the respective parties’ leaders, current President of Kurdistan Massoud Barzani (KDP) and current Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (PUK). After the election, the Alliance formed a coalition with the other Kurdish parties that had run separately. The coalition includes Gorran, a new Kurdish reform group that won 25 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections in Kurdistan in 2009, but only 8 seats in the 2010 election. Both State of Law and Iraqiya have courted the coalition.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, and his Iraqi counterpart told reporters that insurgents were also likely taking advantage of the lack of a government to launch a series of high-profile attacks aimed at reducing confidence in Iraqi security forces.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, was on hand to watch the final American combat team, the 4th Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, tender responsibilities to the 6th Iraqi Army Division.