As Russia began maneuvering its forces prior to the beginning of its invasion of Ukraine last year, the Biden Administration adopted a different and innovative strategy of exposing the world to what the Kremlin was doing. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies had a clear understanding of what they believed were the intentions as well as the capabilities of the Russian military. Unlike prior to any other previous regional or global confrontation, the U.S. sought to defuse the apparent Russian build-up along the Ukrainian border, but to do so in public. Rather than disseminate the general intelligence assessment under which the U.S. was operating, the Biden Administration opted to present in their evaluation of what was and would be happening on the Ukrainian-Russian border.
This strategy sought to accomplish two things. First, by publicly announcing Russian goals--trying to defuse a war before it erupted--could be best achieved by exposing Russia’s intentions in front of the world. Rather than using quiet diplomacy—which the U.S. probably had already sought to accomplish but had failed to achieve a Russian step-down of its forces—the U.S. wanted the world to know that American intelligence was totally aware of what Russian intentions were. Second, having failed with quiet, back-door diplomacy, the U.S. hoped that exposing the Russians before the fact would undermine whatever rationale the Russians wanted to employ to justify its apparent, forthcoming invasion of Ukraine.
For the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, this was a dramatic change in U.S. policy making. As the U.S. was not involved in an immediate confrontation, presumably the Pentagon and Langley acquiesced to this innovative form of strategic diplomacy. While it did not succeed in preventing the Russian invasion, it made the entire world—not only America’s NATO allies—recognize just how effective is the U.S. intelligence gathering operation.
It is in the context of this operating strategy of the Biden Administration, that a recent speech given at Georgetown University on the Israel-Palestinian situation by U.S. CIA Director William Burns, should be understood. Burns addressed the tension growing on the West Bank between various Palestinian groups and Israeli settlers, the IDF, and police. Incidents, which have been escalating over the past several months, have suggested to many sources that conditions on the ground were approaching those that preceded the second intifada in 2001. Burns, like other analysts, has even suggested that the breakout of a third intifada could well occur in late March when the Feast of Ramadan is observed.
Director Burns indicated that when he had recently traveled to the region, he had conveyed to both Israeli and Palestinians leaders America’s concern over the possibility of a new major outbreak of violence. Between the heavy inflammatory rhetoric emanating from some of the new, right-wing extremist Israeli Cabinet members and the general hostility that their supporters in the settlements hold, the area seems ready to explode. His efforts and those of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken appeared clearly focused on convincing both sides to step back from a renewed major confrontation.
While Washington recognizes that this approach ultimately was unsuccessful in dissuading the Russians from invading Ukraine, Burns’ speech signals that the Administration continues to believe that publicly addressing gathered intelligence might be an innovative tool to avoid a confrontation.
Both sides in this instance are different than was the case in Europe. U.S. influence in the Middle East and especially with the Israelis and even the Palestinians is stronger. American interests are directly apparent and immediate. Finally, the U.S. could apply non-military leverage in this conflict, something that was less so in Europe. In fact, any form of economic pressure on Russia was more in the hands of America’s European allies.
The existence of U.S. efforts to constrain the Palestinians and the Israelis has been confirmed by a number of Israeli media sources. The gradual release of information by the U.S. about what the U.S. sees as a negative scenario developing in the region suggests that pressure being placed on both sides is being recognized by the public. This new U.S. strategy of security policy could work between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
コメント