Ian Bremmer

As the world convened at the U.N. General Assembly last week, the willingness of the Obama administration to risk blood and treasure promoting democracy abroad was on full display: Barack Obama gave a stirring speech defending American values and asking other democracies to adopt them. But Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t tell the whole story. He didn’t deliver his speech until after an appearance on a daytime chat show, in obvious support of his re-election campaign.

Many foreign policy experts have criticized Obama for wasting time with Barbara and Whoopi on The View when he could’ve been engaging with foreign leaders on the East Side of Manhattan. But the experts’ takeaway from Obama’s priorities last week is no different than it has been from the administration’s response to months of civil war in Syria, the teeter-tottering of Libya, the reluctance to pose a credible military threat for Iran and the refusal to engage in the Middle East peace process.

The U.S. is willing to do less on the world stage than it has since the onset of World War Two. In the long term, this reset of foreign policy and military initiatives may yield the country a peace dividend. In the short term, there are three international issues where the situation on the ground is deteriorating rapidly and where, in the past, a U.S. president might have intervened. Let’s look at them:

1. Syria. The Assad regime has engaged in deplorable behavior. But the U.S. has been extremely reluctant to support the opposition without a clear identity, leader or mission beyond overthrowing the regime. Furthermore, nothing about the Libya experience has given the U.S. any reason to do anything differently. It’s completely unclear that U.S. intervention in Syria would put U.S. interests in any better shape in that country, or outside of it. The Iraq lesson was simple – that democracy building is very expensive. And Libya taught us more: Regime change itself hurts and can’t be done on the cheap. Furthermore, when it came time for the U.S. to garner international support for its limited Libya mission, Russia could not ignore Gaddafi’s bombast and promise to exterminate the rebels, and therefore could not block the necessary U.N. resolution. When it comes to Syria, Russia won’t provide international cover for a U.S. intervention. Assad gets a pass, despite his brutal war and the fact that it is beginning to reach into bordering states as well. The knock-on effect is more instability in the Middle East – but that seems to be something the Obama administration has decided it can live with.

2. Iran. Here, the U.S. has actually been doing a good job eliciting international pressure on the regime over its quest for nuclear weapons. Rightly so: This is a bigger, global problem. But how much pressure can be brought to bear on Iran, given what’s going on across the region? The Obama administration can say, “Iran, you can’t develop nuclear weapons, or else,” but the question becomes, “or else, what?” Setting out a thick red line is a big problem in this environment. The U.S., according to reports, is running a rather effective sabotage operation on Iran’s labs, but Israel’s current government is apoplectic that Uncle Sam is not sending in the cavalry. Israel, here, is at great risk of appearing to cry wolf, losing the support it has in the international community should the situation in Iran become worse. And Tehran would, it seems, be more willing to declare itself at war with the U.S. to distract the Iranian public from the pain of economic sanctions.

3. Israel and Palestine. While Israel might look like a loser when it comes to Iran, it’s a winner when it comes to its own territorial dispute, no matter who wins the U.S. election in November. Mitt Romney is on the record as saying the Palestinians don’t seem to want peace. When, if ever, has a major party presidential candidate uttered a statement like that? Neither he nor Obama, in other words, intend to use any political capital on another meaningless accord. The message from U.S. politicians to Jerusalem: “We’re done trying to fix this. No more pressure on settlements, or anything else. Good luck.” Israel gets a nearly free hand to deal with Palestine, because there are enough crises in the world that set off anti-American demonstrations, and there’s little need to create another. What that means for Palestinians, though, is the end of American support for their claims, and possibly the end of restraint by Israel.

What all three situations come back to is that the foreign policy implications of the 2012 election are virtually nil. Americans are consumed by domestic issues like the economy and unemployment. Despite the fact that Romney paints Obama as an apologist, a declinist, an unpatriotic leader-from-behind, both are peddling roughly the same foreign policy. Romney is setting a theme and a tone to attack Obama, but it’s mere background music. Whichever candidate is elected will, for different reasons, tell the military “you’re not going to bomb that.” All the rest is posturing.

This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.

PHOTO: U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the 67th United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, September 25, 2012.   REUTERS/Mike Segar

Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship is leaving President Obama with few options: push Iran too hard, and energy prices rise. Do too little, and leave Israel in danger. Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer explains how the U.S. can contain the Iran threat. Part 2.

Iran’s taunting the West, Israel’s rattling its sword, and gas prices are rising. All that puts President Obama’s future at risk, Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer tells Chrystia Freeland. Part 1:

Could it be that the international sanctions against Iran are hurting the Obama administration more than Iran itself? The argument over whether sanctions ever work is an age-old and never-ending debate, and to be clear, that’s not the one I’m trying to have in this column. But I do think it’s worth examining the negatives of Obama’s Iran policy, especially because it is likely to play out during this election season.

Let’s start with the background: Iran’s recent parliamentary elections went off without a hitch. No major protests (see: Russia), no violence, barely a blip in the Western media. Turnout on voting day was surprisingly high, even for the Islamist republic. That has a little to do with the fact that government is actually quite factionalized in Iran — Khamenei versus Ahmadinejad, yes, but also all sorts of high and midlevel bureaucrats — and each faction worked hard to drive turnout, to be able to pass the hot potato of blame should the election have gone poorly. Well, the election didn’t go poorly at all, and suddenly Iran’s government looks more legitimate, internally and externally, than it has in years. Reformists in Iran also picked up a large number of seats, and Iran has everything it did before the election — real economic wealth, a social safety net and huge oil resources that it can sell to every country that doesn’t adhere to the sanctions, of which there are plenty.

That’s the country Barack Obama has to keep in a box to win the election, which is to say one that doesn’t exactly look deplorable to large parts of the global community — like Russia, China, nearly all of Africa and even much of the Middle East. The Iranians won’t be easy to demonize, and to get the sanctions lifted, they are even making concessions to the Europeans, suggesting in talks they’d be amenable to restarting inspections. They’ll play the razor’s edge, even as the uncertainty in the oil market and fear of a shock — like an attack by the U.S. or Israel — steadily drives up the price of oil around the globe.

And that’s the downside for Obama — not only does he have to keep the hawks on their heels to stay true to campaign promises of avoiding unnecessary conflict, but he’ll have to do it as the threat in Iran appears to mount and the price of oil continues, most likely, to climb from its already-high perch of about $107 a barrel. Can Obama really squeeze Iran economically? Given the facts on the ground and Iran’s willingness to play at good behavior, I just don’t buy it. With an improving economy here and a self-defeating Republican field, this is one area that can go bad for the incumbent administration in a hurry, much more so than Europe’s shaky economy or the Greek debt crisis boiling over.

Yet the president is managing the situation as well as anyone could. In meetings with the hawkish Israeli prime minister, Obama kept Bibi Netanyahu talking in abstracts rather than concrete plans for Iran. He promised the country he wouldn’t telegraph his plans, arguing it’s foolish to tell a potential enemy what’s going to happen. (That’s a striking about-face for a country that so recently had a doctrine of preemptive war.) Obama probably got a good performance from Netanyahu because the U.S. has covertly provided Israel with much support on the Iran situation. But make no mistake: Behind the scenes, Bibi has surely drawn a line beyond which Israel won’t placidly follow U.S. policy.

Even though the energy-consuming behaviors of Americans are surprisingly elastic, as illustrated in a new study showing we’re driving far less than we used to, citizens and voters do fear the idea of $5-per-gallon gas — and they’ll punish the politicians who allow it to happen. Even if Obama manages to contain the financial and housing crises, not to mention stop the bleeding on unemployment, he can’t replace them with an energy crisis and expect to avoid pushback in the voting booth. And that’s what, heading toward November, he’ll have to fear in the standoff with Iran and the U.S.’s relationship with Israel.

This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.

At a time when President Obama has moved troops out of Iraq and is moving them out of Afghanistan, it’s looking increasingly like our worries in the Middle East are far from over. Maybe it’s not unprecedented, but it’s highly unusual for a sitting secretary of defense to worry in print (to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius) that Israel could launch a strike against Iran as early as this spring. The point of the Israeli attack, according to Ignatius and Panetta, would be to stop Iran before it begins building a nuclear bomb. The U.S. is saying that it would find such a move foolhardy, and yet also reassuring both the Israeli and American publics that it is committed to Israel’s security.

But it’s probably not Israel’s true intention to strike Iran anyway.

According to Ignatius and many others, the Israelis, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, believe that waiting for the U.S. to strike Iran is an unwise stance. That’s because the U.S.’s threshold for sufficient proof of a nearly finished or completed Iranian nuclear weapon is likely much higher than that of Israel. If such proof came to light, only the U.S. at that point would have the capacity to take out the leadership in Tehran singlehandedly. But such an operation would create a leadership vacuum and leave whoever was running Iran with the bomb. Right now, Israel feels that it can make a dent with its own operation, heading off Iran’s bomb-making before it becomes an issue only the U.S. can deal with. But the window for that option is rapidly closing.

Despite Panetta’s public warnings, and despite Israel’s sudden silence (which many are taking as a sign that it’s gearing up internally for such a mission as this one), an attack on Iran isn’t as likely to occur in the spring as Washington or Tel Aviv would have us believe. That’s because even though new U.S. sanctions on the country went into effect this week, the real test of Iran’s economic fortitude will come around July 1, when the European Union’s gradual introduction of a ban on oil from the country takes full effect. Unfortunately, even those sanctions are unlikely to do much to deter Iran, as India, China and African nations will likely continue to buy much of Iran’s oil production, and they will gain some concessions on price due to the artificially limited market. Nevertheless, Israel will presumably wait to see what happens.

Any smaller strikes that Israel makes against Iran before the economic sanctions would bring down on Israel the ire of the international community, along with that of the Obama administration. Not to mention that Israel certainly wouldn’t want to risk a counterattack if it didn’t have to. So it won’t.

If all of this is true, why would the Israelis telegraph an attack on Iran that is unlikely to happen quite so fast? Well, it’s in their best interests to talk the talk. By using coordinated speaking points they’re bringing Iran front and center on the global stage, while the international community still has time to deal with it. Since the last thing the Israelis want to do is rely on the U.S. to fight their battles for them, they have to press on the Iran issue now, and threaten to act unilaterally, to get the U.S. and EU to act with alacrity. In fact, sources close to the Israeli decision-making process have told me that no final decision has been reached about when or whether to strike Iran. Simply put, it would be premature for Netanyahu and Barak to have made up their minds already. But why would they tell this to the rest of the world when they are convinced the Iranian nuclear threat will soon be very, very real?

The Israelis are smart to play their hand this way, because the world absolutely does need to pay attention to Iran. The political situation in Iran is deteriorating. President Ahmadinejad is facing his own re-election in June 2013, which he almost certainly will not win, if he even lasts that long in his current position. A rift has opened between his camp and that of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – not a good thing for one’s life expectancy in totalitarian religious dictatorships.

The rift has created incentives for increased corruption and heightened self-interest in everyday government actions. That’s why Iran’s message has become scattershot. Remember that embarrassing plot to kill the ambassador from Saudi Arabia, as well, more recently, similar bizarre plots against neighboring Azerbaijan? Meanwhile, Iran’s big regional allies, like Bahrain, Syria and Iraq, have, to put it mildly, their own internal issues to contend with.

Iran, in short, is on its back foot right now. If a provocation comes from Israel, Iran will act like a cornered animal. Geopolitical forces are aligning for just such a lashing out against Israel and the West to occur, whether it’s this spring, after July, or perhaps as a U.S. election October surprise.

In other words, yes, let’s talk about Iran — early and often. Especially about how its influence in the region can be better contained. An open discussion is the world’s best chance of not waking up one day to the news that yet another country has nuclear weapons and everything that would entail in altering the world’s already precarious balance of power.

PHOTO: Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (C), attends a Likud party meeting at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem, February 6, 2012. Netanyahu will visit the United States early next month to address the annual convention of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC in Washington, his office said on Sunday. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.

By Ian Bremmer
The opinions expressed are his own.

If President Obama thinks he’s having a tough month, he’s got nothing on Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu. In Tel Aviv, hundreds of thousands of Israelis are protesting the cost of living. In New York, the Palestinians are readying a statehood resolution at the United Nations. In Ankara, the Turkish government has expelled the Israeli ambassador from the country. And in Cairo, an Egyptian crowd is taking the job on themselves, attacking the Israeli embassy.

Of all of these events, though, Turkey is the biggest worry. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has steadily escalated an anti-Israel tack for over a year now, most recently by accusing Israel of behaving like a “spoiled child.” More directly, Erdogan has also proclaimed that the Turkish navy will stop the planned start of gas drilling explorations off the Cyprus coast by an Israel-Cypriot consortium. That’s tantamount to threatening armed conflict. Why is Turkey so ascendant in Middle East politics, to Israel’s dismay? There are three very good reasons:

1. The U.S. is playing less of a role in the Middle East.

Under President Obama, the U.S. has become a “taker” not a “maker” of foreign policy there. Simply put, this Administration has spent less time on the Middle East peace question than any other since the creation of the Israeli state. With all the issues facing Obama at home — joblessness, a tanking economy and his own re-election, to name a few — and all the more pressing international issues, like winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and dealing with the euro zone and China — Israel has taken a political backseat. As NATO allies like Turkey fill the void and create their own regional strategies, Israel, being in the most unnatural geopolitical position there, has had the hardest time establishing its own power center.

2. A newfound sense of Islamic populism.

It’s been almost a year since the first rumblings of the Arab spring. With the Middle East very much still unstable — albeit a different kind of instability than has usually been evident — it’s been necessary for governments of all stripes to start listening and acceding to the demands of their people. Turkey’s prime minister is far from clinging to power, but it’s safe to say that taking a hard line on Israel is low hanging fruit for any leader in the Islamic world, even in a country with a longstanding secular tradition.

3. A vacuum at the top of the developing world.

There’s a spot to fill in the ranks of emerging market world leaders, and it’s at the very head of the pack. Thanks to factors in and out of his control, no one looks more likely than Erdogan to become the dean of those ranks. Following in the footsteps of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Brazil’s Lula, Erdogan is at the helm of a country that appears ready to step up onto the regional and global stage. Turkish leadership is about to get a new meaning — one that extends beyond a Turkish’s prime minister’s simple advocacy of Turkish interests around the globe. Erdogan has a chance to be out in front on issues important to emerging economies worldwide — and that could become an issue for Israel.

Even in the context of their own history, Israel is right now looking very short on friends. While the country is under little serious internal or external economic pressure, the political and security issues there are getting more and more troublesome. That may be why Israel has stayed very quiet on the diplomatic front as of late, with leaders hoping to keep their heads down and wait for a more propitious environment in which to stake out their political ground. But as the Palestinian recognition issue in the UN is likely to soon renders that stance untenable, Netanyahu will have to find another tack. All of this makes ominous the prospects of broader hostilities breaking out around Israel. And the military force best poised to create confrontation is none other than Turkey.

Though the Cypriot-Israeli gas drilling project (the one Turkey has threatened to blockade) is likely to be resolved with the help of some American intervention, it’s hard to ignore the weak signals emanating from the Middle East that make a conflict no longer unthinkable. Unlikely, absolutely, but an Israeli-Turkey naval confrontation would no longer be the most surprising headline to wake up to one morning.

If such an event came to pass, the U.S. would find itself in quite a pickle. Again, Turkey is a NATO ally — an attack on one is an attack on all — and yet Israel is, despite the recent cool feelings between Obama and Netanyahu, America’s strategic partner in the region. The U.S. would try to de-escalate any standoff, but it would be unable to take a strong stance in such a conflict. That would leave Germany, of all countries, as Israel’s best friend. What an unfortunate irony.

This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.

Photo: Palestinian schoolboys hold a poster depicting Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a rally at Gaza Seaport calling on Erdogan to visit the Gaza Strip September 13, 2011. REUTERS/Ismail Zaydah

By Ian Bremmer
The opinons expressed are his own.

As violent protests rock the Arab world, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government has tried to keep a low profile. It has largely succeeded. That’s about to change.

This year’s upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East is not quite finished. As President Saleh recovers from injuries suffered during an attack on Yemen’s presidential palace, the country remains plagued with protests and crackdowns. Libya’s Qaddafi clings to power, Syria’s Assad copes with surges of public anger, and Egypt’s zigzag path toward democracy reminds us how hard it is to fill the hole left behind by a castoff autocrat.

Israelis have watched closely from the sidelines to better understand what all this turmoil means for their future. As the dust begins to settle, it has become clear that they have plenty to worry about. Populism is taking root in the Middle East, a region where ordinary people have been forced for years to scream in unison to make themselves heard. Now they find that they have the power to bring about change. In response, Arab leaders—the newly elevated, those clinging to power, and even those simply facing a more uncertain future—are now listening to public opinion much more closely.

That’s bad news for Israel, because one of the most popular causes across the Middle East is a more genuine and vigorous defense of Palestinians. The Arab world’s uprisings have had virtually nothing to do with Israel. They are spontaneous expressions of public outrage that governments are corrupt, that average citizens have no power to do anything about it, that living standards aren’t rising, and that nothing ever changes. But the protests have now empowered large numbers of people who also want to see Israel face enormous political pressure.

They’re about to get their wish. In New York next month, Palestinians will seek UN recognition of statehood, and the General Assembly will likely vote to give it to them. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, is well aware that tides are moving in his favor. Not content with a symbolic declaration of his people’s right to form a state, Abbas has pledged to seek UN member status for the new state of Palestine. That’s almost certainly a bridge too far, but he most likely will win enough votes to move the Palestinian Authority from “non-member entity status” to “non-member state status.” The difference is important because, at the very least, it would give the PA greater standing at the UN and other international organizations. It’s also an important psychological achievement that will more deeply legitimize a Palestine state in the eyes of many nations.

America is Israel’s only reliable ally, but the White House wants no part of the UN theatrics. President Obama would welcome an opportunity to prove his commitment to support Israel, and he’ll make clear both Washington’s opposition to a General Assembly move and U.S. intent to veto in the Security Council any Palestinian effort to acquire full UN membership as a state. But he’d also like a chance to back the Arab world’s lunge toward self-determination. He won’t be able to support both sides in September, and he faces much more immediate challenges at home. Reviving the US economy, creating jobs, managing a draw-down of troops from Afghanistan while battling increasingly aggressive Republicans will leave the president with little extra time and political capital to spend on Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic fireworks.

The bad news for Israel is that Palestinians are aware of the limits on what they can get, and will likely focus their fight on the General Assembly, not the Security Council, where Obama wouldn’t cast America’s veto. Add the famously troubled relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, and Israel is about to look more isolated than ever.

This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.

Photo: A woman holds a Palestinian flag during the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification soccer match between Thailand and the Palestinian Territories at A-Ram stadium near Jerusalem July 28, 2011. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman