מפגש חוקרים עם דייוויד גורדון

On January 31, 2012, Dr. David F. Gordon visited INSS and met with the institute's researchers. Dr. Gordon
currently a senior official at the Eurasia Group, previously served as director of policy planning under U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and in high-level positions at the National Intelligence Council and CIA. At INSS, Dr. Gordon shared his thoughts on the ramifications of the recently-released U.S. defense doctrine, with its announcement of a U.S. pivot toward East Asia.

Dr. Gordon said the new doctrine constitutes a meaningful shift in U.S. priorities but not one that will lessen U.S. involvement in the Middle East. According to Dr. Gordon, the doctrine is a de facto announcement by the Obama administration that "the era of September 11 is over." The counterinsurgency strategy, designed to reshape societies and backed by the senior echelon of the U.S. military, had run its course. In its place, the Obama administration signaled that the military should lower its ambitions and focus on a counterterrorism strategy against Al Qaeda only.

At the same time, the doctrine announced, the military should direct its attention toward East Asia. There, both security and economic imperatives would lead the region to become the focus of a coming contest for geopolitical influence. The U.S. will enhance its relationships with its allies in order to ensure that China does not dominate the region without limits. Still, the U.S. will not seek to topple the Chinese regime, only to "domesticate" China into following accepted international norms.

In Dr. Gordon's view, the doctrine will not necessarily reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Stabilizing international energy markets will remain a U.S. interest and require a U.S. military commitment, even as the U.S. turns toward the Western Hemisphere for its own energy supplies. The U.S. relatinoship with Israel will also remain important. Meanwhile, in the Eurasian arena, the U.S. will reduce its commitment, enabling Russia to regain influence in some former Soviet republics.

Discussing the strategy with INSS researchers, Dr. Gordon noted the troubled U.S. relatinos with Pakistan and increasing U.S. frustration with Europe. The deterioration of ties with Pakistan had soured U.S. policymakers on involvement in counterinsurgency and in the Eurasian arena more broadly. More ominously, Dr. Gordon added, Pakistan could develop a new network for proliferation of nuclear weapons, a significant challenge for the United States. As for Europe, the Libya mission had exposed European militaries as unfit to conduct even an operation against an inferior foe located nearby. That only enhanced Washington's long-time frustration with the lack of "burden sharing."

As might be expected, the group also discussed policy toward Iran. Dr. Gordon said a U.S. president, whether Barack Obama or a Republican successor, would consider a military strike against Iran only if the Islamic Republic behaved more aggressively or assertively in the region. On its own, progress by Iran in its nuclear program would not be sufficient to sway a U.S. president toward military action. As Dr. Gordon said, "Israel cannot be certain the U.S. will have