After Cairo, All Eyes Are on Iran
Published in La Repubblica
(Italy) on 6 June 2009
by Renzo Guolo (link to original)
Exactly how did the Islamic world react to Obama’s “new beginning”?
The responses differed across the spectrum, depending on who it was that was responding – the public, government officials, or well-known Islamic activists. Some believe that it is possible that this new Presidents words have dismantled the thesis of “clash of civilizations” and started to peel away the legacy of the Bush era. Obama has stirred, if not enthusiasm, at least great expectations among the masses of the Arab world. In contrast, some political actors believe that the President has put a well-established geopolitical balance at risk.
Al–Quaeda’s response was predictable. For those with anti-American sentiments, there is little difference between Obama and Bush. Still, the Cairo speech has created some nervousness over a possible opening “in the hearts and minds” of Muslims, especially those in American-allied countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The issues Obama was most concerned with addressing were the conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran. While discussing with the idea of “two states” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. President did not define Hamas as a terrorist organization; on the contrary, he recognized its weight in Palestinian society and outlined a role for Hamas in the negotiation process as long as the organization agrees to avoid violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Hamas, for its part, expressed a willingness to work towards a political solution and understood the novelty of the President’s outreach.
After all, for the new American administration, what is important is not the Islamic nature of organizations or governments but their local or global character as well as their alliances. As long as they are not connected to al-Quaeda or other hostile powers and express the true voice of the people, any government will be considered legitimate political interlocutors. Also important is how deeply religion touches their policy to the point where it disrupts relations with other nations as well as their relationship with Iran.
Besides his refusal of the “politics of discourse”, we will soon know if, inspired by the inner light of Obama’s words, Ayatollah Khamenei will withdraw support for Ahmadinejad during imminent presidential elections after Obama reiterated his disdain for the Iranian Presidents denial of the Holocaust and his position against Israel. Obama chastised Ahmadinejad his speech in Buchenwald, during the German leg of his trip.
We will soon know whether the extended hand of the American leader, who recognized the right of Teheran to civil nuclear within the non-proliferation treaty, will be accepted or not. That would make the relationship between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic easier. If it happened, if Iran should be fully recognized as a regional power and international partner in the energy market, the balance of the Islamic world would inevitably shift.
That is why this “new beginning” simultaneously fascinates and worries analysts and pundits across the globe: if the Cairo speech moves beyond its symbolic and cultural dimension and were to be translated into a new policy, the difficult relationship between America and Islam won’t be the only thing that would change.
The responses differed across the spectrum, depending on who it was that was responding – the public, government officials, or well-known Islamic activists. Some believe that it is possible that this new Presidents words have dismantled the thesis of “clash of civilizations” and started to peel away the legacy of the Bush era. Obama has stirred, if not enthusiasm, at least great expectations among the masses of the Arab world. In contrast, some political actors believe that the President has put a well-established geopolitical balance at risk.
Al–Quaeda’s response was predictable. For those with anti-American sentiments, there is little difference between Obama and Bush. Still, the Cairo speech has created some nervousness over a possible opening “in the hearts and minds” of Muslims, especially those in American-allied countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The issues Obama was most concerned with addressing were the conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran. While discussing with the idea of “two states” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. President did not define Hamas as a terrorist organization; on the contrary, he recognized its weight in Palestinian society and outlined a role for Hamas in the negotiation process as long as the organization agrees to avoid violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Hamas, for its part, expressed a willingness to work towards a political solution and understood the novelty of the President’s outreach.
After all, for the new American administration, what is important is not the Islamic nature of organizations or governments but their local or global character as well as their alliances. As long as they are not connected to al-Quaeda or other hostile powers and express the true voice of the people, any government will be considered legitimate political interlocutors. Also important is how deeply religion touches their policy to the point where it disrupts relations with other nations as well as their relationship with Iran.
Besides his refusal of the “politics of discourse”, we will soon know if, inspired by the inner light of Obama’s words, Ayatollah Khamenei will withdraw support for Ahmadinejad during imminent presidential elections after Obama reiterated his disdain for the Iranian Presidents denial of the Holocaust and his position against Israel. Obama chastised Ahmadinejad his speech in Buchenwald, during the German leg of his trip.
We will soon know whether the extended hand of the American leader, who recognized the right of Teheran to civil nuclear within the non-proliferation treaty, will be accepted or not. That would make the relationship between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic easier. If it happened, if Iran should be fully recognized as a regional power and international partner in the energy market, the balance of the Islamic world would inevitably shift.
That is why this “new beginning” simultaneously fascinates and worries analysts and pundits across the globe: if the Cairo speech moves beyond its symbolic and cultural dimension and were to be translated into a new policy, the difficult relationship between America and Islam won’t be the only thing that would change.