WarSclerotic

Syrian PM agrees to Russian proposal on chemical weapons | JPost | Israel News.

Israel is ignoring the neighborly hand extended by Iran – Diplomacy and Defense Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz.

( And now a word from our resident lefty, Haaretz. – JW )

Israel fears losing its justification for an attack on Iran and that the U.S. will fall for Hassan Rohani’s ‘smooth’ talking.

By Zvi Bar’el | Sep. 10, 2013 | 9:40 AM | 7

Iranian President Hassan Rohani: A new wind blowing from Tehran. Photo by AP

The only country in Syria’s neighborhood that has not put its military on war alert is Iran. While the armies of Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and, of course, Israel are flexing their muscles and moving troops and chemical warfare teams toward the Syrian border, Iran gives the impression that the threatened attack on Syria does not concern it militarily. True, Iran is not a country under threat, at least not at this stage, but it is also not at all sure that Syrian President Bashar Assad can continue to protect Iran’s national interests and its position in the region.

There are increasing numbers of public pronouncements along the lines of, “We believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused,” as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reportedly said last week in an interview with the Aseman Weekly. According to another report, Ala Al-Din Boroujerdi, the chairman of Iran’s Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy, made it clear to Assad that “Iran has not made a deal with the West to overthrow Assad, but will also not take part in the military campaign to defend him.”

The Iranian professor and commentator Sadegh Zibakalam, who writes for the reformist paper Etemaad, presented the dilemma concerning Syria from a new and original point of view. If Syria is attacked by the West, he wrote, relations between Syria’s allies and the West will be so cold and dark that the new Iranian president, Hassan Rohani, will have no chance of reducing tensions and improving relations with the West. In such conditions, Rohani would find himself sitting alongside military officers, while detente with the West will not only be be off the agenda, but Rohan imay find himself removed from office, wrote Zibakalam.

Mohammad Ali Subhani wrote in Bihar that the Iranian government has the responsibility to first take care of the Iranian people and fulfill its promises and commitments to its own citizens. Therefore, it should not stray from ite moderate policy and should not let events in Syria influence its internal affairs.

And when Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Hossein Dehghan states there is no need to send troops or arms to Syria, and Iran did not intend to do so since Syria does not need aid, it is possible to conclude that, instead of the previous narrative, in which an attack on Syria would be seen as an attack on Iran, a new narrative is developing: Syria is now a burden.

The election of Hassan Rohani as president had a clear, major and agreed-upon objective: To end the sanctions on Iran, so it could return to full economic activity without giving up its own “interests.” Included in the phrase “interests” is the ability to continue to develop its nuclear technology. On the face of things, these are two contradictory principles, but Rohani is striving to resolve the contradiction through renewed diplomacy – a new sort of dialogue with the West, based on a new and calming vocabulary that includes recognizing the fact of the Holocaust, New Year’s greetings to the Jews, reopening the activity of the British Embassy in Tehran and entrusting nuclear negotations to the foreign ministry and its new leader Zarif, instead of the Supreme National Security Council.

These changes are viewed in the West as cosmetic, and the West demands proof of Iran’s intentions. But even cosmetics can be strategic, especially when they have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The first important international public test for Rohani will come this month, when he makes his first speech in the United Nations General Assembly; a speech, in which the world expects to hear how Iran intends to give practical expression to the new winds blowing from its direction. Rohani is not expected to announce an Iranian intention to freeze uranium enrichment in its nuclear facilities or to halt the development of nuclear technology. But an announcement of “full transparency” – including, among other things, UN inspection of the Parchin facility and other sites that have been barred to inspection until now – will be more than just a signal of a strategic change in Iran’s policies.

So far, the statements of Rohani and his senior officials give no indication of practical plans to freeze or reduce uranium enrichment; even less so the range of concessions that Khamenei will allow Rohani to make. Nonetheless, the absence of the aggressive declarations that characterized former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – such as “Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium” – and the discussions that Zarif is holding with EU foreign policy head Catherine Ashton on setting an early date for a meeting of the P-5 Plus 1 group, could be a clear sign of more than just “cosmetic diplomacy.”

This change is waiting for a response from the West. It is unfortunate, therefore, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres did not bother to respond to the Rosh Hashanah greetings from the Iranian president. Instead Netanyahu chose to stick to threats and to disparage Rohani’s gesture. Israel’s fear of losing its justification for an attack on Iran and the fear that the United States may yet “fall into the trap” set by the “smooth language” of the Iranian president is driving it crazy. There is no disagreement that Iran will be judged by its actions and not its words, but even in the existing state of hostility between the two countries, it is not superfluous – and possibly even beneficial – to preserve a certain level of courtesy.

Assad is off the US military hook and keeps his chemical weapons. Israel is the loser of this round.

( This piece is even more dimwitted than the usual debka analysis.  Obama isn’t quitting till the WMDs are all accounted for.  I guess debka is pissed they didn’t get their war.  Bad for their business, I suppose.  Either that or they are blinded by their “attack Iran NOW” ideology.  Whatever.  Netanyahu will attack Iran when he needs to.  Period.  Sorry, debka…. – JW )

Chemical shell shrapnel in Saraqeb, Idlib

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon have until now patted  themselves on the back for striking a balanced and cautious stance which kept Israel secure in the course of the nearly three-year old Syrian conflict. However, President Barack Obama’s decision to put US military action against Syria on hold – unveiled in six US TV interviews Tuesday, Sept. 10 – leaves Israel exposed to a major threat: Bashar Assad’s chemical warfare capability which is left intact.
By buying into Moscow’s proposal to place Syria’s chemical arsenal under international oversight (picked up from a possible throwaway comment by US Secretary of State John Kerry), Obama has in fact opened the door to the “Iranian syndrome.”

Yet another weapon of mass destruction is now loose in the Middle East.  Assad can dip into Tehran’s two decades of bamboozling international inspectors and concealing its nuclear weapons program and pick up endless tricks to keep his chemical arsenal far from “international control” – not to mention destruction.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) doesn’t even have a mechanism for monitoring CW. It would need many months or years – if ever – to dig through a mountain of bureaucracy and build one and muster expert personnel for the task. By then, the chemical arsenal will be well distributed and hidden in inaccessible locations – a project the Syrian government embarked on two weeks ago when America was still believed to be genuinely on track for a military strike. The monitors would also need the Damascus government’s consent to carry out inspections.

debkafile’s military sources report that the 20 locations in which the poison gas containers were hidden two weeks ago had grown by this week to fifty.

Most international intelligence agencies in the West and the Middle East were relying on Israel’s clandestine services to keep track of the whereabouts of the concealed CW. It was taken for granted that when the Syrian war reached a point at which the Syrian ruler used his chemical weapons, the US and its allies, including Israel, would deploy special forces for covert operations to destroy them.
Netanyahu and Ya’alon must now decide whether to continue this painstaking covert effort for updating the map of concealed chemical weapons stores, now that President Obama has put military action on a back burner. It will be much harder now that he has given Assad leeway for moving the stocks around from place to place to hoodwink secret watchers.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javed Zarif Tuesday joined the Assad regime in welcoming Moscow’s proposal:  Syria has joined Iran and North Korea on the list of WMD possessors which are safe from US military punishment.

For Israel this is a fiasco. The Netanyahu government’s rationale for sticking to the Obama administration’s line on the Syrian conflict was that it would eventually bring about the break-up – or at least the weakening – of the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis.

But now, President Obama has led his Syria strategy into a blind alley, leaving the axis stronger than ever before and Israel in the lurch.

After using massive quantities of poison gas to kill hundreds of civilians with impunity, Bashar Assad will not hesitate to go forward with his next objective, the capture of Aleppo, Syria’s biggest town.

For months, Israel tried to convince Washington of the vital importance of keeping Aleppo out of Assad’s hands, because it is the ultimate game changer of the civil war that would award ultimate victory to the Assad regime and its allies, Iran, Russia and Hizballah.
Now that the threat of an imminent US attack has been lifted, the Syrian ruler’s way is open to win Aleppo, with his chemical arsenal intact. It is clear that Israel is the loser of this round.

Winning without chemical weapons | The Times of Israel.

If Damascus hands over its nonconventional arms to international supervision, the move could strengthen Assad while embarrassing the US

This 1994 photo posted on the official Facebook page of the Syrian Presidency, purports to show then-captain Bashar Assad, looking at documents during a military project in Syria (photo credit: AP/Syrian Presidency via Facebook)

You’ve got to tip your hat to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The man whose life mission over the past few months was to head-butt the US and weaken its position around the world (especially in the Middle East), managed to do it again.

On the very day during which the US Congress finally gathered to discuss a possible strike against Syria; exactly as it finally appeared US President Barack Obama will manage to muster the majority he needs for a military operation; as Obama was scheduled for six national TV appearances about Syria — Putin pulled the carpet from under Obama’s feet and removed the impetus behind an American attack.

Moscow seems to have managed to get Damascus to agree to international supervision over its chemical weapons stockpile. The details of the Russian proposal aren’t clear yet, but it appears that the deal was the demand of the West this entire time — that Syria hand over its chemical weapons cache to a third party. It’s possible the offer will provide Obama, when time comes, with a way out of his previous statements about attacking the Syrian regime.

On the Syrian side, there’s no doubt President Bashar Assad had quite a few reasons to welcome the Russian proposal with open arms. If he agrees to hand over the chemical weapons he has, not only could he avoid a US military strike against him, he’ll also preserve the current situation in Syria, which gives him and his army an advantage over the disorganized and fragmented opposition.

Free Syrian Army head General Salim Idris reacted furiously to the proposal, telling al Jazeera that the Syrian regime was lying to the West and was impossible to trust, a sign of just how bad it is for those opposing Assad.

However, the Syrian president will be looked at by many in the West, including the US, as a pragmatic player “to do business with.” It’s almost unnecessary to mention that a refusal to the offer from Damascus’s most important ally would have caused Russia to ignore a Western attack in a good case, and in the worst scenario, have Moscow give the green light for his replacement.

It’s also important to remember that the chemical weapons used by Assad so far didn’t really help him in the battlefield. Over the past year he’s used chemical weapons around 13 times, mainly for tactical reasons — like conquering an area and clearing it of opposition fighters and local population, — and not a strategic goal like destroying those fighting him. The incident outside Damascus on August 21, which the threat of military action, was an exception.

In other words, the Syrian president can reach similar results in his fight against the opposition using conventional weapons, with a little bit more effort and some more casualties on his side.

And still, as far as Assad is concerned, there are disadvantages to the Russian offer. The chemical weapons he controls are the “doomsday weapon” of Syria. They’re threatening and terrorizing Israel and the West, and for Assad they are the final obstacle preventing the West from intervening in Syria.

Losing these weapons could endanger Assad and put him in a situation similar to that of the defenseless Muammar Ghaddafi. One can only guess that if Ghaddafi possessed nuclear weapons, which he had tried to obtain, the West would have avoided any military action in Libya and he could have dealt with the opposition in his country.

The American response to Syria’s announcement that “it gladly accepts the Russian offer to hand over its chemical weapons to international supervision” is not yet clear.

On Monday, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Tony Blinken, said the White House would “take a hard look at” the Russian proposal. However, Secretary of State John Kerry has insisted his comments that giving up the arms could ward off a potential strike were not a diplomatic opening.

Until the US’s position is stated, we’ll probably continue to hear threats from the Syrian-Iranian axis meant to frighten Israel and weaken the Congress and American public’s support of an attack. They too, it appears, have decided to take part in Putin’s efforts to embarrass Obama.

Kerry to Russia: Syria comments were not a proposal | The Times of Israel.

In phone call with the Russian FM, America’s top diplomat expresses ‘serious skepticism’ about Assad handing over his chemical stockpile

US Secretary of State John Kerry delivers a statement on Syria at the State Department in Washington, DC, August 30, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)

US Secretary of State John Kerry told his Russian counterpart Monday that earlier comments about Syria averting a US strike by turning over its chemical weapons were rhetorical and not meant as a proposal, a senior US official said.

In a phone conversation with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kerry voiced “serious skepticism” when Lavrov offered to explore the idea, reported Reuters. Kerry said the US would take a look at any serious proposal, but that it wouldn’t stop White House efforts to obtain Congressional authorization for the use of force against the Bashar Assad regime.

A possible diplomatic solution to avoid a US military strike arose Monday when Syria swiftly welcomed a suggestion floated by Kerry to move all of the country’s chemical weapons under international control.

The diplomatic opening followed a remarkable chain of events that started with Kerry’s suggestion, followed by a proposal from Russia and immediate endorsement by the UN secretary-general.

The developments could provide President Barack Obama with a way out of a messy political and foreign policy bind, though the matter was far from settled.

The White House, expressing deep doubts about Assad’s intentions, continued to build its case for military action.

Kerry told reporters in London early Monday that Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the use of chemical weapons by surrendering control of “every single bit” of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

Hours later, the Russian foreign minister promised to push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert US action. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem immediately embraced the proposal.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged acceptance, and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Lavrov’s proposal “deserves close examination.”

That seemed to raise prospects for avoiding an expansion of the Syrian civil war, and spokesmen said the Obama administration would take a “hard look” at the proposal.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, after a meeting with Obama, said a Syria move to dump chemical weapons would be an important, though she warned it “cannot be another excuse for delay and obstruction.”

And state Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the US had “serious skepticism” about Syria’s statement because it might be merely a stalling tactic. She said Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past.

In fact, she said the developments made it even more important for Congress to authorize the use of force against Syria as a means for pushing Assad to actually get rid of chemical weapons stocks.

Obama prepared his final public arguments for military action before Congress holds its first vote on the issue this week. But he faces a decidedly uphill fight — and serious doubts by the American public.

A new Associated Press poll shows a majority of Americans oppose a US strike on Syria. Most of those surveyed said they believe even limited strikes would lead to a long-term military commitment. The poll was released Monday and conducted Sept. 6-8.

Obama was taping six television network interviews for late Monday and administration officials were briefing more members of Congress as they returned from summer recess. Obama will address the nation Tuesday night.

The US accuses Assad’s government of being behind an attack using sarin gas in a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21, killing 1,429 people. Some other estimates of the deaths are lower, but there is wide agreement that chemical weapons were used.

In an interview broadcast Monday on “CBS This Morning,” Assad denied responsibility, accused the Obama administration of spreading lies without providing a “single shred of evidence,” and warned that air strikes against his nation could bring retaliation. Pressed on what that might include, Assad responded, “I’m not fortune teller.”

Later Monday, Syria’s foreign minister, meeting with his Russian counterpart in Moscow, addressed the idea of getting rid of any chemical weapons.

“Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people,” said al-Moallem.

Al-Moallem’s statement appeared to mark an acknowledgement by Damascus that it possesses chemical weapons and reflected what appeared to be an attempt by Assad to avoid the US military attack.

But it remained to be seen whether the statement represented a genuine goodwill gesture by Syria or simply an attempt to buy time.

US officials in Washington initially said they were surprised by Kerry’s comments, which came at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and in response to a question about what, if anything, Assad could do to stop the US from punishing it for the use of chemical weapons.

“Sure,” Kerry replied. “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”

In a speech on Monday, Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice reiterated that the president had decided it is in US interests to carry out limited strikes. And the State Department moved to play down Kerry’s comment.

“Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used,” department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an email sent to reporters. “His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons otherwise he would have done so long ago.”

Obama again puts military strike – and vote in Congress – on hold to give Russian proposal a chance.

Barack Obama favors the Russian proposal

US president Barack Obama went against the words of his advisers, Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice Monday, and offered in TV interviews early Tuesday, Sept. 10, to “absolutely” put on hold military action against Syria, as well as the vote in Congress,  if Bashar Assad abandoned chemical weapons. He said he found some positive signs in the Russian proposal [for Assad to hand over his chemical arsenal to international control] and said he was willing to run it to ground in the next few days to see if the Syrian issue can’t be solved without the military option.

“I welcome the Russian proposals and we will try and verify them,’ he said.
As for the decision in Congress, which was almost certain to vote down military action, Obama said that too could be put on hold. Because from the start there had been no imminent military threat to the United States, there was still time for “a good deliberation in Congress before a decision.”  It would take at least a week or a few weeks before Congress decides, and meanwhile “we can continue to talk to the Russians.”

“We know the capabilities of the Syrian army and that is no big problem for us,” he said
In answer to a question, Obama admitted he had discussed the Russian proposal with Vladimir Putin last week at St. Petersburg (where they talked for 20 minutes on the G20 summit sidelines). He suggested then that the Syrian issue be approached in two stages: First, dispose of the chemical weapons problem, then move on to other issues of the Syrian conflict. Obama said he still believed the Syrian problem could not be solved militarily and would do everything to put the political discussions on the fast track.
Most Washington observers were critical of this latest Obama flip-flop, saying they received the impression from the interviews that the president had seized on the Russian proposal as a means of extricating himself from a major defeat in Congress.

debkafile reported earlier:

In an unexpected turn of events along the road to a US military strike on Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday afternoon, Sept. 9  that he had urged Syria to hand over its nuclear arsenal to international control if that would stop an American attack. Moscow had lost no time in picking up the gauntlet thrown down by US Secretary of State John Kerry in London a short time before.

Asked if there were steps the Syrian president could take to avert an American-led attack, Kerry replied: “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.”

The Obama administration had in this way given Bashar Assad a week to turn in his chemical weapons to an international team that would no doubt be put together by the US, Russia and the United Nations.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, who arrived in Moscow earlier Monday, was informed that the Kremlin expected a positive and expeditious answer from President Assad. Within the hour, he came back with a welcome for the Russian “proposal” to place his country’s chemical weapons under international control. But he said nothing about letting the arsenal be moved out of the country and destroyed , as both Lavrov and Kerry specified.
Sunday, debkafile reported that a secret US proposal had been presented to Assad and that negotiations were in progress on a deal for a way out of the crisis generated by the chemical attack east of Damascus on Aug. 21. The transfer of Syria’s entire chemical stockpile to international control was a part of that proposition.
Our military sources add that Assad was in no position to flatly rebuff the Russian ultimatum; only to try and maneuver and haggle to buy time. If Moscow stops the air corridor lifting military supplies to Damascus, the Syrian army will quickly run out of ordnance for fighting the rebels.

Obama says Russian proposal on Syria a potential ‘breakthrough’ | JPost | Israel News.

President Barack Obama said on Monday the United States would explore Russia‘s potential “breakthrough” plan to put Syria‘s chemical weapons under international control but would keep the pressure on Damascus by asking Congress to authorize US military strikes.

In a series of television interviews designed to persuade Congress and the American public of the need for intervention, Obama said he would pause any military action if Syria would relinquish control of its chemical weapons arsenal.

Congress sought to buy more time to explore Russia‘s offer. Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid pushed back a Wednesday test vote on authorizing military strikes to possibly later in the week.

“I don’t think we need to see how fast we can do this. We have to see how well we can do this,” Reid told his colleagues.

The surprise diplomatic course opened up after US Secretary of State John Kerry made an unscripted comment earlier on Monday. Kerry suggested in London, in response to a reporter’s question, that Syrian President Bashar Assad could avoid a military strike by surrendering his chemical arsenal.

Russia pounced on the comment, and Syria also said it was open to a proposal to put the weapons under international control.

Obama said he prefers a diplomatic solution in Syria, but is still skeptical.

“This could potentially be a significant breakthrough,” Obama told NBC News in an interview. “But we have to be skeptical because this is not how we’ve seen them operate over the last couple of years.”

Administration officials also said the proposal would not derail efforts to get congressional authorization for strikes, saying it was the threat of strikes that motivated Russia‘s offer.

Obama faces an uphill struggle to win approval on military intervention from Congress, where a majority of lawmakers are still undecided on whether to use military force to punish Syria for an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack on civilians.

‘WOULDN’T SAY I’M CONFIDENT’

“I wouldn’t say I’m confident” of winning approval, Obama told NBC, but he plans an intensified lobbying blitz for support over the next few days.

In addition to the television interviews, Obama was due to visit the Capitol on Tuesday to make his case to lawmakers from both parties before making a televised address to the nation from the White House in the evening.

Some lawmakers reacted positively to the Russian plan. Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham, leading supporters of the strikes, said the Russian proposal should make it easier to win support in Congress.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Russia could be “most effective” in encouraging Assad to place his chemical arsenal under UN control.

“I do think that the Russians are serious. I met with the Russian ambassador earlier today and believe that they are serious in putting this together and that it is a plan that could solve the problem,” she said.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2016, waded into the debate, endorsing Obama’s drive for Congress to approve military action and saying Syria‘s surrender of chemical weapons would be an “important step.”

Hundreds of House members attended a Syria briefing late on Monday by Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Many members expressed interest in the Russia proposal, along with a dose of skepticism.

“We should very quickly and clearly find out if this thing is real,” said Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I’m dubious, because Russia‘s been a very bad player on this, blocking everything we’ve tried to do in the United Nations.”

The Russian proposal could make it harder for the administration to build political momentum for military strikes by giving an excuse to some lawmakers to say they prefer to let the diplomatic process play out.

‘THROWS A WRENCH’

“It basically throws a bit of a wrench into the administration’s approach,” said Robert Danin, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But it may be a welcome wrench.”

Some members of Congress said Obama has lost support for a strike over the last week and polls indicated Americans, weary after wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, strongly opposed military action.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday showed opposition to a US military strike was increasing. The poll, taken Thursday through Monday, indicated 63 percent of Americans oppose intervention, up from 53 percent in a survey ending August 30.

Mike Rogers, Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a supporter of strikes, said on Monday that Obama had “fumbled” the message on Syria and faced a critical moment.

“Mr. President, lay out the case. It’s an important case for the future national security of this country. You’re right on your decision, now show Americans why you believe it’s right,” Rogers said on MSNBC. “And when he does that, I think we’re going to get votes.”

Assad, in an interview with CBS television, denied there was any evidence linking his government to the attack and warned that if there were strikes against Syria, the United States should expect reprisals.

Susan Rice, making her first major speech since taking over as Obama’s national security adviser, said the United States cannot allow countries such as North Korea and Iran to think Washington would not react to a chemical weapons attack.

“We cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction, or a nuclear North Korea, or an aspiring nuclear Iran, to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our longstanding warnings,” she said at the New America Foundation think tank.