Former Clinton and Obama administration Middle East specialist Martin Indyk, now a purportedly “distinguished fellow” at the Council on Foreign Relations, has authored a new book on Henry Kissinger which, broadly speaking, lauds the “Kissingerian” long-game approach to Arab-Israeli peace and other foreign policy challenges. In an essay appearing this past weekend in the Wall Street Journal’s Review section, Indyk summarized his book and lumped the Trump administration’s approach to Israel and the Palestinians in with what he described as the previously “failed” policies of Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, all of which ran counter to a Kissinger-like approach.
The email exchange below began with an earnest argument that, unlike the previous presidents’ efforts, Trump’s Abraham Accords were, in fact, quite Kissingerian, and that Mr. Indyk’s suggestion to the contrary was perhaps influenced by a perceived need to bash Trump in order to climb the New York Times bestseller list. To the prickly Mr. Indyk’s credit, he bravely replied more than once, even if those replies only help to prove his penchant for partisanship.
From: Darren McKinney (Postdeconstruction.com)
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:58:09 AM
To: Martin S. Indyk (Council on Foreign Relations)
Cc: Adam Horvath (WSJ); Walter Russell Mead (Hudson Institute); Richard Haass (Council on Foreign Relations)
Subject: Abraham Accords Are Right Out of Kissinger’s Long-Game Playbook
Dear Mr. Indyk,
Prompted this morning by Walter Russell Mead‘s Wall Street Journal Bookshelf review of your latest work on Henry Kissinger, I just caught up to your excerpt-like piece in last weekend’s Review section, “Kissinger Knew That Middle East Peace Couldn’t Be Rushed” [C4, Oct.16].
And I might otherwise have been impressed enough to buy and study the new book but for your seemingly partisan suggestion that President Trump’s purportedly “failed” approach to Arab-Israeli peace should be lumped in with those of Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama as insufficiently Kissingerian.
Yet unlike his three predecessors, two of whom you served, Trump did not, as you imply, pursue a big-bang “endgame that risked exploding” a “stable regional order required [for] a peace process.” In fact, this layman and any number of Middle East experts could argue that the Trump administration’s small-ball pursuit of the Abraham Accords was directly in line with Kissinger’s long-view toward “exhausting” the Palestinians’ capacity to resist such a process.
By looking to normalize and deepen Israel’s commercial and cultural ties to more moderate Arab neighbors, the accords were plainly aimed at steadily diminishing the patience of those neighbors and others for Palestinian intransigence, and thus, eventually, to leave the Palestinians and their sponsors with no option but good-faith negotiations.
Mind you, neither I nor any objective observer credits Donald Trump himself with foreign policy genius for conceiving and implementing the Abraham Accords. But he ultimately blessed the initiative of his diplomats and subtle progress was made — even if his simultaneous efforts to draw down U.S. hard power in the region weren’t entirely Kissingerian.
In any case, as much as any author who’s toiled in a Democrat’s administration may feel a need these days to diminish Trump in order to climb the New York Times bestseller list, it strikes this potential book-buyer as unseemly that you’ve let some petty, sour-grapes partisanship leak into your analysis.
Respectfully, Darren McKinney, Washington, D.C.
_ _ _ _
From: Martin S. Indyk Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:29 AM To: Darren McKinney Subject: Re: Abraham Accords Are Right Out of Kissinger’s Long-Game Playbook |
Thanks Darren. Donald Trump is a disaster for America and a pig of a man (witness his latest comments on the death of Colin Powell). And yet I described his achievement of the Abraham Accords as “admirable” in my WSJ essay. He didn’t pursue them. He lucked into them. I give Jared Kushner and Avi Berkowitz full credit for recognizing the opportunity when it turned up and exploiting it to the max. And I have said and written that repeatedly. But all three of them did pursue a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for almost all of Trump’s term and failed miserably at that, just like the rest of us. Those are the facts. Who’s partisan?
Martin Indyk, Distinguished Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
_ _ _ _
From: Darren McKinney
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Martin S. Indyk
Subject: Re: Abraham Accords Are Right Out of Kissinger’s Long-Game Playbook
If you mean to suggest I’m partisan, I haven’t called anyone a “pig of a man.” At least not recently. I merely used your words, as they were available to me in admittedly excerpted supply, to make a point contrary to one you seem politically obliged to make.
That said, I appreciate your willingness to reply, even if Colin Powell’s death, God bless him, has nothing to do with the Abraham Accords.
Yours, Darren
_ _ _ _
From: Martin S. Indyk Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:01 PM To: Darren McKinney Subject: Re: Abraham Accords Are Right Out of Kissinger’s Long-Game Playbook |
That Donald Trump is a pig of a man is an objective statement. For proof look at what he said about Colin Powell’s death (or John McCain’s death).
Martin Indyk, Distinguished Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
_ _ _ _
From: Darren McKinney Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:18 PM To: Martin S. Indyk Subject: Re: Abraham Accords Are Right Out of Kissinger’s Long-Game Playbook |
“Objective” or not, it says nothing about the Abraham Accords and their Kissingerian design. And if a “distinguished,” deep-thinking foreign policy expert above the fray wants to sell a book, he ought to act and speak like a distinguished, deep-thinking foreign policy expert above the fray. Otherwise, he should just throw off all pretense and become a full-time MSNBC “analyst.”
-Darren