Baker Behind Another Bush: Hang on Tight; Might Get Bumpy

Out of the shadows — but which one

Dark deals in the wings

Former secretary of state and longtime Republican Party fixer James Baker, speaking on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS on Sunday, alleged that the Iran nuclear deal being struck by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany is "going to alienate all of our allies in the region."

Baker is known for his strong ties to Arab Gulf oil monarchies such as Saudi Arabia. But was he really speaking for them? A review of reactions from the Middle East itself does not support Baker’s assertion. Also, it’s a major GOP-Rightwing, Talk Radio, and FOX-promoted talking point we have heard nearly 24/7.

Baker is an old oilman and was really talking about the six Arab Gulf monarchies that belong to the Gulf Cooperation Council, of which Saudi Arabia is loosely speaking the leader, but within which Qatar and Oman are often mavericks. Still, even there, Baker’s cautions need some qualifications.

After the basic political framework of the deal was read out in Lausanne last week, President Obama called King Salman of Saudi Arabia to brief him on the state of the negotiations. Soon thereafter, the Saudi cabinet issued a communique in which it welcomed the negotiations. It expressed its hope that a binding final agreement will be reached that augments security and stability in the region. The cabinet reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s support for peaceful solutions that allow the countries of the Middle East to deploy nuclear energy for civilian energy generation, under the inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The cabinet drew attention again to the Arab League call for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads. Peace and security in the area, it said, depend on good-faith dialogue and non-interference in the internal affairs of Arab states.

So, which Arab states is Baker trying to speak for?

1.  It is not all of the Arab League 22-member states.

2.  It is not Syria, an Arab nationalist state where al-Assad is beleaguered and depends on Iranian support (they have greeted the Lausanne agreement with enthusiasm).

3.  It is not Iraq, largely an Arab state, where the government of PM Haydar al-Abadi warmly welcomed the announcement of the framework agreement. Keep in mind that Iraq had its own small nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, but they were rolled up by UN inspectors in 1991. Iraq hopes for this agreement is especially important since Iraq, like Syria, also has a military alliance with Iran.

4.  It is not Algeria, another Arab state with a storied role in modern Arab nationalism, congratulated the negotiating partners on their achievement and praised their “positive intentions and that that any solution that allows us to avoid war in the region is welcome.”

5.  It is not the Oman foreign ministry who welcomed the Lausanne announcement as opening a new stage in increased security and stability in the region and worldwide. Foreign Ministry Secretary-General Sayyid Badr Al-Busaidi tweeted that “The international agreement between Iran and the P5+1 must be considered an accomplishment for the international community and a victory for peace.”

6.  It is not Qatar, their foreign minister made a statement on the Lausanne framework agreement that differed in no particular from the Saudi response, which is rare occurrence, except that Qatar did not bring up Iran’s interventions in Arab politics.

Of course, the public Saudi statements in general support of the Lausanne framework but conceal a great deal of private anxiety about Iran. In 2008, King Abdullah’s government spoke of the need to “cut off the head of the snake.” But while some Saudi leaders no doubt continue to hold such views, the cabinet of King Salman is now publicly supporting Obama’s initiative.

Still, the notion that “the Arabs” in general oppose Lausanne, or even that the GCC unanimously condemns it, cannot be supported from the public record as Baker asserts.

But then we have the strident efforts of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his pal apparently in the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer – both determined it seems, to derail the negotiations even before they are in ink and on paper. Rather, the member states of the Arab League are divided among allies of Iran, independent nationalists who view the accord positively, and the conservative Gulf oil monarchies. The spectrum runs from enthusiasm to cautious acceptance, with even one of the GCC states, Oman, showing enthusiasm.

PM Netanyahu is an outlier in the Middle East on this issue and so is hard line Republicans (the 47 Senators and their letter to Iran) and now apparently a few DEMS like Schumer who have joined them … that is most unfortunate.

So, what how does Baker feel about PM Netanyahu?? It’s not just Democrats and White House officials who’ve got problems with Benjamin Netanyahu, but Baker blast “diplomatic missteps and political gamesmanship” by Netanyahu. He is criticizing him for an insufficient commitment to peace and an absolutist opposition to the Iran nuclear talks.

Baker recently told a gala dinner crowd of left-leaning Israeli advocacy groups on J Street that he supported efforts to get a deal with Tehran — but he called for President Obama to bring any agreement before Congress (as noted: Mr. Obama is not legally required to do that).  

Baker was the chief diplomat for President George H.W. Bush, and prior to that Secretary of State under Reagan II. Now, is he advising JEB Bush on his presidential campaign. All we need now is Dark Dick (Cheney) to come back as DOD adviser.