Interview with Tom for Kurdistani press

Shirwan Hamid who writes for the Political Analysis Department of Kurdistani Nwe Newspaper conducted the following email interview with Tom

KNN: What are the most important challenges, in your opinion, facing the Obama administration in the coming four years?

TB: Obama will need to unwind the financial mess in America. That will be job #1 and will consume much of his first year and a good portion of his second.

Abroad, all focus moves to Afghanistan/Pakistan, including the push for a regional solution that involves interested great powers like Russia, China and India. Iran will also be approached.

The drawdown in Iraq will proceed slowly but surely, and Iran will be engaged on this as well.

Iran's slow-but-steady acquisition of nuclear capacity will continue, and much international effort will be made to slow it, but Iran's achievement is a foregone conclusion. This will likely push both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, together, toward similar capability. These developments will force a regional security dialogue that includes these three states plus Israel. Done well, recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia and Iran will happen, paving the way for the possibility of a two-state solution on Palestine/Israel, even as Iran is likely to still attempt to derail that process.

People were optimistic during and after the presidential election campaign about Obama being elected. To what do you attribute that optimism? In other wards, what are the factors that have made people in general optimistic about Obama's Administration?

There is a strong sense that, not only is Obama probably the smartest president we've had in a long time, but he's also a very cautious one who thinks long and hard before taking action. His caution should not be misinterpreted as weakness or indecisiveness. Indeed, he may well be looking for the right target, other than Afghanistan/Pakistan to prove his commitment to a strong defense (always a weak point for Democrats in this age).

Other than that, the generation change that has occurred creates a lot of optimism. Obama, born in 1960, is perceived to be a post-Boomer president with a greater commitment to bipartisanship.

Obama, unlike the Bush administration, seems to focus on the developments of Afghanistan and the necessity to strengthen the U.S military and diplomatic presence there. The question is do you think it's the strategic location of Afghanistan that has gained the attention of president Obama, or it is broader than that to include the countries neighboring Afghanistan that U.S is in conflict with?

I don't think Afghanistan is strategically located whatsoever. I think it is in the middle of nowhere important to the global economy, and in this world, the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the global economy.

I do believe the Obama administration is interested in improving relations in the larger region, including Central Asia, and there is the clear desire to make sure Pakistan remains a coherent state.

What do you think is the agenda of the new U.S administration in Iraq?

A progressive drawdown of troops involved in combat, because of the strain on troops and the need to increase our troops in the Afghanistan situation. Underlying that desire is the commitment to get U.S. troop casualties in Iraq down to virtually zero. Once U.S. deaths become rare, any concern from the U.S. public about leaving behind a far-smaller but still-significant number of troops will dissipate almost completely. The ideal would be a long-term military relationship that featured clear cooperation on anti-terrorism and continued military training of local forces.

There will be much talk about improving the dynamics of democracy inside Iraq, but, in truth, the U.S. accepts the notion of a loosely federated Iraq with Iraq under Shiia control. On that score, much concern will be voiced about growing Iranian influence, but little will be done to effectively counter this inevitable trend.

To be more specific, what will the policy of Obama be towards Kurds? To what extent can the Kurdistan region depend on Obama's administration in protecting its achievements?

Kurdistan's problem is that it has been so secure in the past that there are basically no U.S. troops in the KRG to speak of. The Kurdistanis would do well to get some U.S. troops based there as soon as possible, otherwise the KRG is looking at a long-term situation in which the U.S. has drawn down its troops in southern Iraq to the point where it is unable to prevent any future Shiia-versus-Sunni violence, especially if the two sides are backed by Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively. Once any such struggle is settled, very likely in the favor of the Shiia, I would expect Baghdad to progressively seek to limit the KRG's independent ways. Having a small U.S. force there as a potential tripwire would therefore be quite useful. If I were the KRG, I would pursue such a course very vigorously with the new administration.

There are certain reports that say Obama wants a solution to the Kirkuk problem. How far those reports can be true?

There are likely to be true, but I would be surprised if there is much the new administration could achieve in this situation. To keep the peace, the U.S. is more likely to favor the Arab Iraqi position than the Kurdish Iraqi position.

Concerning Arab-Israel crises, there are certain reports about undercover negotiations between Syria and Israel, mediated by Turkey. Political observers say those negotiations are desperate games of Damascus to regain relative satisfaction from Washington and survive its diplomatic isolation. As a Kurdish politician how do you see that kind of dialogue between those two foes?

As an American security expert, I recognize the West's desire to rollback Iranian influence in the region at the margins, which would include Iran's support for Hamas in Gaza, Hizbollah in southern Lebanon, and its long-term special relationship with Syria. I think Assad is smart enough to see the writing on the wall here, and thus is looking to come in from the cold with regard to both Israel and the United States, meaning I believe Syria will be "flipped" before the end of the first Obama term.

Do you expect a Palestinian national state during Obama's term?

No. I expect Hamas' stubborn desire to destroy Israel will prevent that, even as I think Fatah in the West Bank may be satisfied with the partial solution of a 1-and-1/2 state solution, meaning the West Bank seeks a separate peace with Israel. But even there, I would expect that Hamas and Hizbollah would contest any such effort, with Tehran's strong backing.

Iran is also one of the top challenges of the U.S.' new administration, and western media sources expect Tehran to be an atomic state in next year. Obama during the election campaigns called for direct face to face talks with the Iranian leaders. Do you find this new soft diplomacy of Obama as only an election tactic or is there something else behind the scenes? How do you see this equation?

I think the attempts by the Obama administration are real and useful. But I also believe that Ahmadinejad needs continued tension to facilitate his re-election, so I have low expectations for success in 2009.

I think the U.S. will eventually move to extend--explicitly--America's nuclear "umbrella" over Israel and any Arab state that seeks such protection from Iran's emerging nuclear capability. I think this is a smart move.

Concerning the global economic crisis, what roadmap and policy is Obama's administration expected to follow to save the country?

The global economy is still largely dependent on the U.S. economy's demand function, meaning that any and all efforts to stimulate a resurgent demand from the American consumer is of paramount importance. This overall effort will succeed. The only question is the length of time involved.