Robert M. Danin is Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He headed the Jerusalem mission of the Quartet representative, Tony Blair, from April 2008 until August 2010. A former career State Department official with over twenty years of Middle East experience, Dr. Danin previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs with responsibilities for Israeli-Palestinian issues and Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. He also served at the National Security Council for over three years, first as director for Israeli-Palestinian affairs and the Levant and then as acting senior director for Near East and North African affairs. A recipient of the State Department's Superior Honor Award, Dr. Danin served as a Middle East and Gulf specialist on the secretary of state's policy planning staff, and as a State Department senior Middle East political and military analyst. Prior to joining the State Department, he worked as a Jerusalem-based journalist covering Israeli and Palestinian politics. Dr. Danin holds a BA in history from the University of California, Berkeley, an MSFS degree from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, and a doctorate in the international relations of the Middle East from St. Antony's College, Oxford University.
Defining U.S. Interests in the Middle East
The United States constantly faces major challenges in the Middle East that require high-level attention and the commitment of significant military, economic, and diplomatic resources. Despite attempts to pivot toward Asia, senior U.S. officials find themselves spending a disproportionate amount of time on the Middle East. When deciding to use force in Syria and Iraq, provide military assistance to Egypt, or pursue sustained high-level initiatives to forge Israeli-Palestinian peace, American leaders invoke U.S. national interests in the Middle East. Rarely, however, are these interests clearly spelled out or are the assumptions on which they are based questioned. Since the end of the Cold War, the way that the United States has defined its interests in the Middle East has evolved in dramatic ways. These changed perceptions of U.S. national interests contributed to dramatic shifts in strategic priorities. Whereas the United States once sought to preserve regional stability above all, it came to see an imperative in transforming the region by toppling dictators and promoting democratic change. My work on these issues will result in a book on changing U.S. interests in the Middle East and suggest that the United States needs to define its interests with greater precision, while finding a way to narrow the gap between its ideals and actions in the region. I also convene the "Critical Issues in the Middle East" roundtable series and write the Middle East Matters blog.
The Future of the Two-State Solution
In 1991, the United States launched the first serious direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Madrid. In the more than twenty years since, negotiations have continued, from Oslo to Camp David to Annapolis to the more recent initiatives led by the Obama administration. With the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry's effort in April 2014, and the Gaza war that followed soon after, confidence in both the peace process and in U.S. leadership is at a low. Many analysts and policymakers question the possibilities for peace, while many Israelis and Palestinians doubt the viability of a two-state solution. Are peace negotiations possible, and if so under what conditions? Are there ways to push forward towards the end goal of two states in the absence of high-level negotiations? What can be achieved through a sustained effort at Palestinian state-building? What is to be done about Gaza's political and economic isolation? My work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a book chapter, a CFR policy memo, various op-eds, and blog posts—addresses these questions.
U.S. policy of isolating Gaza is counterproductive and inadvertently helps entrench the terrorist group Hamas' control. The Obama administration should instead encourage trade and contacts between the West Bank and Gazan people to reestablish national institutions and elections, thereby empowering Palestinian partners for peace.
See more in Palestine; Peace, Conflict, and Human Rights
In his chapter, "Integrating the Top-down with the Bottom-up Approach to Israeli-Palestinian Peace," CFR Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow Robert Danin analyzes the "bottom-up" approach to peacemaking, focusing on Palestinian state-building and institution-building, while noting the integral, mutually reinforcing connection between ground-up and top-down approaches to the peace process—one cannot succeed without the other.
See more in Middle East and North Africa; Peace, Conflict, and Human Rights; Politics and Strategy
In what may be the clearest picture of Iran's nuclear program to date, Iran: The Nuclear Challenge maps the objectives, tools, and strategies for dealing with one of the most vexing issues facing the United States and global community today.
See more in Iran; Proliferation
Protests in Jordan have led to the fall of the government, but its monarchy is secure and should not be seen as another Arab regime ready to topple, says CFR's Robert Danin.
See more in Egypt; Political Movements and Protests; Jordan