I have been asked to speak about the future of the Middle East. That’s a broad topic so let me focus more on how my country sees and deals with the future challenges of the region.

As you must all know, the United States is in the thick of a Presidential Campaign. It is time of great excitement because the nation pauses from current problems to reflect on what could be – what should be.

Last week I heard one news commentator who I think got a little carried away. The journalist complained that President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice were spending a lot of time in the Middle East lately and advised the next president to shift emphasis. “The next president needs to spend less time on Middle East issues and more on relations with others in the world”.

As seductive as this may seem, let us be clear, the focus and energies of US policymakers are tied to the Middle East because of its critical importance. There are tough issues in the region that require attention.

So my advice for the next President would be to pay even more attention to the Middle East -- and do it early and decisively during the first term.

We are at a critical junction in American diplomacy. It is a time for change. The election of a new team to the White House next year represents a chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership.

The first messages the next president sends next year will be watched very closely across the Middle East. The message will determine whether the United States will be able to repair the damage done to our relations in the region -- whether the credibility of US leadership can be restored.

In my remarks today let me comment on a few of the more pressing crisis hot spots in the Middle East that the next American president must immediately address.

But before we talk about crisis management strategy – the heavy stuff --, I would like to draw attention to several positive developments in the Middle East. Because, as much as crisis and war occupy our present and define our futures, so do successes.

Dramatic and positive change in the Gulf is underway. It may not be headline-grabbing news but within the context of the traditional, conservative societies of the region, significant reform is underway.

One of the key drivers is the market place. Global trade is helping to burst the region’s traditional societies wide open.

Turkey’s exports have more than tripled in the past six years -- $85 billion. It ranks fifth in the world by World Trade Organization in terms of export growth and helps serve as an engine for growth in Central Asia.

Gulf States too have understood the value of diversifying from economies built exclusively on oil exports. The UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain aspire to develop as financial centers, international air and shipping hubs, university cities, health care capitals, and tourist destinations.

The impact of open markets worldwide cannot be underestimated. The level of global trade is 133 times what it was just 15 years ago – And world poverty is dramatically reduced

In 1981, 40% of the world’s population barely survived on one dollar a day. By 2004 that figure had been reduced to 18% -- and by 2015 it is expected to be only 12%.

I wanted to begin my remarks on this positive note because it is important to build on the advances in the region while we deal with the enduring political problems.

ISRAEL

One of the most enduring relationships for the US is Israel. And one of the most pressing challenges is securing a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly the Palestinians who deserve a homeland now.

The close relationship with Israel will remain one factor of American diplomacy in the Middle East that will hold constant no matter who is elected.

The US will remain a stalwart defender of Israel’s security, its unchallengeable right to exist, and its position as our strongest ally in the Middle East. Any new President will support economic and military aid to Israel. But that should not impinge on US responsibility as an honest broker to call on Israel to make some tough decisions.

That said, Israel will face at least three significant challenges in the near future. All three are particularly troubling because they emerge from internal social conditions rather than from hostile external neighbors.

First, Israel faces a demographic crisis in which Jews could soon become the minority in Israel.

Israel has a small population of about five and a half million Jews and about one and a half million Arabs. Add to that some four million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians have one of the highest birthrates in the world. Very shortly there will be more Arabs than Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. They call it “the battle of the womb.”

This demographic bomb is a motivating factor for Israel to seek a two-state solution in which Palestinians live in and govern their own state.

A second internal factor is a growing weariness of the perpetual war footing among Israel’s younger generation.

Israelis today are prosperous with a high quality of life. The economy is strong and growing.

Even at the height of Hezbollah shelling Israel in 2006, for example, the Israeli stock market was strong. But the war on Hezbollah did begin to define a growing pacifism among, particularly the younger population.

While Army service remains mandatory, there are some rumblings that it is burdensome and unfairly exempts ultra-religious groups. The confrontation also undermined Israel’s self image as invincible. This had political repercussions for Israel’s dealings with its neighbors.

Finally, Israel faces a current and future governance crisis. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suffers from single digit approval ratings. To make matters more difficult, Olmert is embroiled in yet another corruption investigation.

While each of these trends is troubling, together they could create a more favorable disposition for a negotiated peace with Palestinians on a two state model.

PEACE TALKS

All this is to say the next American President will almost certainly inherit an impasse in the Palestinian – Israeli peace talks, despite President Bush’s exhortations that he intends to finish a deal by the time he leaves office.

At this point the best outcome one could hope for in the current round of diplomatic talks is that peace talks are kept alive. The worst case scenario is that the talks rupture and collapse before next year.

In either event, few analysts predict substantial progress between now and next January on the core issues of Jerusalem, right of return for Palestinian refugees, borders, and security.

We are all watching with great anticipation as Prime Minister Erdogan encourages discussions between Israel and Syria. These talks will have enormous impact on a delicate web of sensitive relations in the Middle East.

Any Israeli-Syrian accord over the Golan Heights would impact Syrian support for Hezbollah, Iran’s relations with Syria, the complicated impasse in forming a Lebanese government in Beirut, Turkish-Syrian relations including water rights, Saudi concern about Shia Hezbollah dominance and, of course, Israel’s security vis-a-vis both the Golan and Lebanon.

As President Bush remains locked into a policy of not talking to Hezbollah or Hamas and poor ties with Syria, he will not engage in this complicated set of issues.

The Bush Administration is under fire for ignoring the Peace Process for seven of his eight years in office. The next President will enter office with a renewed mandate and one that will certainly expect him to take a different approach to the Middle East.

The next President is advised to turn his diplomatic attention to brokering a fair deal early – very early -- in his first term.

Progress on this front, more than any single issue would give a positive jolt to the Middle East. More than any other achievement, resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict would restore American influence.

A recent survey by Middle East analyst Shibley Telhami and pollster John Zogby revealed that the single most important measure the US could undertake to improve relations in the Middle East would be to broker a fair solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

No one thinks it will be easy.

The obstacles to progress include:
A Palestinian leadership fractured between Hamas and Fatah with a very weak Palestinian Authority leadership.
Continued Palestinian terrorism, mostly from Hamas, that undercuts Israelis who would like to join negotiations;
An aggressive Israeli settlers movement that effectively blocks he road map.
A growing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza where 1.3 million people live in wretchedly dense conditions.

IRAQ

As you can see, I list the resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict as the number one priority in our efforts to foster peace across the region. The current administration believed that road runs through Baghdad.

Iraq’s future is also a high priority for the next US president. All agree that there are no easy answers, but the candidates offer clear differences.

Options for US policy in Iraq can be reduced to a simple calculation – the cost of keeping US troops in Iraq versus the cost of leaving.

Republican candidate John McCain supports a policy of staying the course.
He believes US troops should stay in Iraq until the government of Iraq is capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. Only within the last few days is he saying that troops could be pulled out in the next five years

His supporters believe precipitous withdrawal of American troops would cause chaos and increased violence in Iraq. It would embolden Al Qaeda who would claim victory. The United States would be perceived as weak in the face of adversity.

The most likely Democratic candidate, Barak Obama opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning. He argues for starting a process to end the war now. He advocates immediately beginning to withdraw American combat brigades steadily, in a responsible way, and in consultation with the Iraqis. He acknowledges some US troops should remain to provide security, train Iraqi forces, and strike at Al Qaeda Iraq.

Obama supports a new approach to press for an accord on reconciliation within Iraq. The political discussions could lead to a new constitutional convention that would finally include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government.

The next American president also needs to encourage a more central role for the United Nations in convening and participating in this convention.

Successful reconciliation would mean Iraqis meet key political benchmarks outside of the constitutional process, including new local elections and revising – for real—debaathification.

I believe the United States also has a moral obligation to address the human costs of the war. I have dealt with this challenge first hand during my days as Deputy High Commissioner of UNHCR. We need to deliver assistance to the four million refugees and internally displaced Iraqis.

Unilateral approaches have failed. The US must re-engage the international community and involve all of Iraq’s neighbors and the United Nations Security Council to help secure Iraq’s borders, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq’s unity so it no longer threatens its neighbors.

The presidential candidates also sharply differ over how to deal with Iran and Syria.

John McCain remains adamantly opposed to opening dialogue. Barak Obama would include Syria and Iran in regional talks because, in his own words, “Not talking doesn’t make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant and it doesn’t get results.

He says “Strong presidents tell their adversaries where they stand and that’s how tough and principled diplomacy works.”

The future of American involvement in Iraq will depend largely on who is elected next November and which one of these narratives will determine American policy.

Elections can be quirky and I do not want to risk a prediction, but American public opinion polls today reveal a deeply disappointed and skeptical nation.

Over 80% of the American public thinks the US is generally on the wrong track. A majority now thinks the Iraq war was a mistake.

Arab populations in the Middle East are just as pessimistic.
The Telhami/Zogby poll reports 81% of Arabs believe Iraq is worse off today than before the war.
The poll also shows that 61% of all Arabs believe withdrawal of US troops would lead to local solutions.

IRAN

Within this context, the international community now confronts an emboldened Iran.

Ironically, US polices over recent years have helped to strengthen Iran more than its own aggressive actions. The US removed Iran’s key adversaries, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and Sunni dominance in Iraq.

Yet even so, Iran looms large as the Middle Eastern nation most disruptive to prospects for a stable Middle East for several reasons:

Iran is unwavering in its ambitions to develop a nuclear program. The December, 2007 National Intelligence Estimate extended the date when Iran could build a bomb, but it made clear that Iran could produce enough fissile material for nuclear weapons through its civilian centrifuge enrichment program.

Iran is unambiguously supplying arms and explosives to terrorist groups who use them against US troops in Iraq.

Iran is fanning the flames of Sunni-Shia rivalry. It provides funds and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iran is partly responsible for continued impasse in Lebanon and works against progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

These multiple negative factors means the risk of escalating conflict between the United States and Iran remains high. The course of US-Iran relations could veer in two radically different directions.

There are some in Washington who watch Vice President Dick Cheney’s travels to the Gulf, deployments of US carrier battle groups, and anti-Iran White House pronouncements and conclude that President Bush will launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before he leaves office.

The reasoning is that he will do it before a Democrat is elected because he believes this is the right thing to do.

There are others, who reason that the US will not strike Iran militarily because the evidence is there that an air attack would inflict marginal damage to any nuclear weapon program.

They also argue that we cannot do it because it would unleash uncontrollable negative forces in the Gulf oil markets at a time when the market alone is doing huge harm to American consumers.

And, they believe President Bush won’t do it because there is little support from any quarter for a strike and he is too late in his final term in office.

I also would not be surprised if a new administration chooses to open a dialogue with Iran. The US could return (if possible) to the proposals for a “grand bargain” floated by Iran in 2003.

In conclusion, if I had to make a prediction about the future of American diplomacy it would be a greater inclination toward dialogue over unilateralism. America will be listening more.
Our success in the future will come from our capacity to draw on the strengths of our allies. Our leadership will be measured by our willingness to listen to friends like Turkey who have deeper understandings of the region. Our policies will only be sound if built around the wise counsel of our allies.

The United States and Turkey have more that unites us than divides us. We both seek a stable, prosperous, democratic Middle East in which governments meet the aspirations of their people.

We are committed to work together to assure secure borders -- to the east and south. And to countering extremism and its violent consequences.

We have much to learn from Turkey as a modern model in a changing world.
I have come here to Bahcesehir University to listen and learn and I welcome the discussions and conversations we will share over the next few days. My advice to the next American president is to do the same – listen and learn.

Speaker Details:

Wendy J. Chamberlin is President of the Middle East Institute