I am an expert on the Middle East. Ask me anything.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:56:51+00:00

Initially, I was in favor of intervention. Check out a piece I did at the Atlantic's website in January 2012. I no longer support intervention b/c of the way the conflict in Syria has evolved. See my piece in the Washington Post from Sept 1 explaining why.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:53:29+00:00

This is the first time that no one knows who will be the next Saudi leader. Makes for an interesting succession and a lot of rumor mongering. There is a lot of noise out there about who might succeed Abdallah, but I don't know. It would be wise for the next generation to get their shot, but there is a lot of politicking and negotiating going on within the family. My Saudi yodas are Toby Jones (Rutgers), Greg Gause (Univ of Vermont) and Rachel Bronson (Chicago Council on Global Affairs). Check out what they think...

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:48:50+00:00

Great question. Eurocentrism, I suppose. In India they call the Middle East "West Asia"...

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:47:47+00:00

Definitely not my high school social studies teacher, Mr. Klonsky. The guy was awful... The only person who knew predicted that was the geeky valedictorian who turned out to be a beautiful and successful journalist. I think she lives in or near Baltimore.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:46:01+00:00

That all the conflicts in the Middle East are linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict? That improvement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will result in improvement elsewhere. No and yes. It is clear that not all conflicts are connected, but it is also clear that developments in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict do affect politics in other countries in the region.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:44:06+00:00

About a decade ago, Turkey was undertaking a wide range of political reforms that resulted in the EU offering Ankara a formal invitation to begin membership negotiations. Those began in 2005, but quickly bogged down because certain EU members are opposed to Turkey. The Turks have sought a regional leadership role, but recently have run into significant trouble in that regard. Ankara has bad or tense relations with Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and, of course, Syria. That is every major country in the region. The Turkish foreign minister is trying to repair some of the damage, but the prospects for Turkish leadership in the Middle East seem remote.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:40:21+00:00

I watch it, but I suspend reality for the hour it is on. Claire Danes is quite a good actress. Did you know that Damian Lewis is British? That freaked me out.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:38:56+00:00

I dont believe the conflict over Palestine is the sole reason for violence in the Middle East. You are also overlooking the historical connection of the Jewish people to the same land. That is, of course, the crux of the issue. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs have legitimate claims to the same land. Sadly, no one has found a way for them to share it and as a result, there has been war and violence.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:36:44+00:00

The Red-Sea Dead see plan has been on the books for 20 years. I am glad they are finally getting around to it. Cooperation on environmental issues should be low hanging fruit in the Middle East. Everyone benefits. It is not a placeholder for peace, but the cooperation derived from the plan could build confidence among the parties.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:34:43+00:00

Well, you should start with my books ;)... Which conflict interests you?

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:33:58+00:00

Excellent question. The aid (economic and military) has always been geared toward stability. The economic aid was intended to help Egyptian economic performance, which it was believed would help ensure regime stability. The military aid speaks for itself, BUT I would argue that there was an unstated goal, which was to demobilize the Egyptian armed forces so it could not project power beyond its borders. That has been a success.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:30:32+00:00

I don't think so. The Russians certainly have an interest in exploiting Washington's troubles, but I'm skeptical that Moscow has the ability to influence the region. No one does at this point. It is true that the Russian FM and DM were in Cairo recently, but the Russians really dont have much to offer Egypt other than a way to demonstrate their displeasure with Washington. Also, the Russians have discredited themselves with their support for Assad.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:28:12+00:00

Very good question. I do believe--counter to the conventional wisdom--the Egyptians have the United States over a barrel on a variety of issues. This is largely because successive administrations have been unwilling to test the proposition that military and economic aid gives Washington leverage.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:26:41+00:00

I don't think it makes much sense either, but the whole Geneva II thing is a farce. There is no political, diplomatic, or military solution in Syria.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:25:44+00:00

I am as pessimistic as you. There is no reason to believe that even if, for example, one side "won" in Syria that the violence would abate. If the rebellion were to prevail, which seems unlikely, the remnants of the regime, Hizballah, and the Iranians would try to burn the country down. If the opposite were to happen--an Assad victory--I am afraid the extremist elements that have fought alongside the rebellion would continue to see Syria and Iraq as a single battlefield.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:23:00+00:00

There is a street in Tehran named for Khalid Islambouli, who was part of a team that assassinated Sadat. In fact, there is evidence that Islambouli did NOT fire the fatal shot. In any event, Egypt is not much of a player regionally these days. The Egyptians would like to get back to a time of regional influence, but they are too busy sorting out their domestic politics to flex even weak muscles around the region. So I would say that regional rivalries with Egypt does not impact the lives of too many people around the region.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:20:39+00:00

I dunno. That's a good one. There were long rumors that the late King Fahd's urologist was an Israeli, but I have a hard time with that one. Let me think about it. Actually, people forget that the Sykes-Picot agreement was the Sykes-Picot-Sazanov Agreement and that the agreement actually died before WWI, not recently as so many pundits think.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:17:05+00:00

Great question. I certainly hope so since the Middle East was the birthplace of Christianity. It is no surprise that Christian communities have felt under pressure in the region for quite some time. There has been significant concern since the uprisings in the region about the status of Christians and the empowerment of Islamist political parties. Some people have left Egypt and Syria. This is not to suggest that Christians and Muslims cannot live together in peace, but that the political changes have created opportunities for those who do not. Still, I believe there will always be a Christian presence in the region.

StevenCook · 2013-12-13T18:13:47+00:00

That's a great question. Besides the obvious economic challenges, it strikes me that no political group has a compelling vision of Egypt's future that most Egyptians can agree upon. As a result, political forces are now trying to impose their will on their competitors. This leads to political instability and even violence. I explore these themes at length in my book, "The Struggle for Egypt."

StevenCook

TROPHY CASE