Much Despair, and a Small Hope

Difference? America’s blank vote in the UN Security Council is telling. The war is not over yet. Would Barack Obama make a difference?

There is only one nation capable of forcing Israel to stop the attacks on the Gaza strip: America. In the same way Iran, and Syria, are the countries that can make Hamas change its course. That does not mean that the sides in this conflict will let themselves be steered according to the political mood of their most important supporters.

And as Israel is not a puppet regime of America, Hamas is not one for Iran. Still, both the U.S. and Iran could have decisive roles in future developments, if they wish to use their power.

In this fact, there is despair – and a small hope.

The expectations of Barack Obama are enormous. His message of change is an invitation for optimism in a world that is sick of the Bush administration’s failed foreign policies. It is not in the least surprising that PLO’s Yasser Abed Rabbo was writing excitedly that Obama’s presidency “will usher in a new era for America’s role in the world.”

There are few doubts that Obama will make a difference. But it is too simple when hope has nothing more than an “everything-is-better-than-Bush” attitude. And there is not much reason to believe that the sought change in the presidency will lead to a dramatic change in American Middle Eastern politics.

It is much firmer than we Europeans often understand. Harry Truman – the first post-war president – established America as a strong defender of Israel, contrary to advice from his Secretary of State George Marshall.

That has to do with Jewish influence, and 6.7 million Jewish voters at American presidential elections. It is also about defining Israel as a democratic spearhead in an area dominated by chaos or dictatorship. The growing European skepticism to the Israeli occupational policy has never been established in the United States.

The most important factor is a long and close political relationship which has been strengthened rather than weakened in the last few years. Especially after September 11th, many American leaders have identified Israel’s justified fear of terrorist acts with their own trauma.

That that is the basic perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict differs so much in America and Europe. Here at home it is about occupation, repression and Palestinian suffering, while in America it is about a common destiny in the War on Terrorism.

As paradoxically as it may seem: both the superpower U.S.A. and the nation with the most powerful military complex in the Middle East – are seeing themselves in the role of the victim, and recognizes the fear in each other’s national face.

All this influences America’s view of what is happening at the Gaza strip.

Three of four Jewish voters supported Barack Obama in the election, despite the Republicans branding him as “dangerously naive” in ads in Americas Jewish newspapers.

He underlined his loyalty to Israel’s security interests, and was not derailed by the ad’s text: “history has shown that a naïve and weak foreign policy has resulted in tragedy for the Jewish people.”

The main argument for Obama’s naïveté was his will to speak to the Iranian leadership. Also, his incoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Obama’s own vice president, Joe Biden, battered him over this in the primaries.

In ten days, Obama will be inaugurated as Americas 44th president. Then he will change his principles according to political practice.

A few days after the historic election, the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joined the long line of people congratulating him. It was a gesture the President-elect was not ready to return. From now on “Realpolitik” is the order of the day, which is why it was no longer talk about meeting the Iranians “any time any where,” but “at a time and place of our choosing.”

And we know – or rather think we know – that the moment of truth in the dangerous game around Iran’s nuclear program will come in Obama’s first term. That is why Obama cannot afford the risk of buying more time, something the Tehran-regime has become experts at doing.

We also know that Israel sees the Iranian threat as the great strategic question of our time. And we can see that there is an eerie basis for conflict here that will make the Gaza war look like a careful prelude.

Iran will hold a presidential election in six months. There are those who think they can see the Teheran regime looking for a way out of the isolation that pains their country more than their leaders will admit. If so, it will have to be done with out any scratches to the Iranian image.

That will not be easy. But in the first few months, Obama must develop a credible policy for dealing with the threat the uncontrolled nuclear program represents. The policy must also contain an open or hidden signal to Teheran that there is an open window of time for dialogue.

In the Middle East, the rings of conflict are forged together into a strong chain that can seem unbreakable. There is an explosive situation hidden in the conflict around the Iranian nuclear program. The future path for Iraq is also open, and Iran plays a role there. The same goes for Lebanon and the West Bank and in Gaza, places where the Tehran

regime can make a difference.

Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush waited until their last years in the White House before they really used any energy to make an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Both failed. There is little evidence that Barack Obama will leap into a conflict where breaking your political back is so easy, unless he sees a solution here as a precondition for a peaceful solution to larger problems in the region. A political universal key that can unlock many things.