Tough Mission Ahead for Obama and the Middle East

It is widely known that the American president, Barack Obama, came heralding change, not only in America, but also in the rest of the world. It is also widely known that he was to face the same challenges tackled by his predecessors. However, he differed, not only in strongly raising the slogan of “change” but also in symbolizing it, particularly through his own life experiences.

But this same merit [of being different] made his mission tougher. Obama was to be faithful to the principles he has always believed in. These very principles–which are freedom, democracy and change around the world–compelled him to exert tremendous effort until he duly assumed the most sublime position as the leader of the world’s superpower. He attempted to change what is not easily changeable in the Middle East. In other words, Obama was to be perfect, realistic, optimistic, pragmatic, soft, strong, diplomatic, decisive, the one who sponsors change and a conservative president! How can he combine these contradicting roles or adopt all of them at once?

No one can dispute that the historic speech Obama gave at Cairo University has laid the foundations of American strategy for the coming era. However, Obama’s speech at Cairo University contained a number of inquiries as well as impressive political language. Indeed, Obama’s ship might crash on the rocks of the perplexing, complicated and contradicting realities of the Middle East if these realities are to be drafted under the attitudes of the previous administration towards the Middle East.

On one hand, we can see his address to the Islamic world everywhere. His reconciliatory tone was for all Muslims, although he alluded to extremist Islamic movements. Moreover, we can see how he avoided the word “terror,” which was attached to the Islamic world after the events of 9/11 and the launching of war on terror. However, from a political point of view, this issue remains more complicated than it seems. This is simply attributed to religious authorities. More clearly, the Islamic world is not a united entity. It is split into moderate regimes and radical ones. Arab communities are either pro-Western, liberal, realistic and secular or opponents to all of this.

Obama’s attitude towards democracy is still more complicated. He has pressed his administration’s commitment not to interfere in the domestic problems of any country and to respect the dignity of others and the right to choose a suitable social and political system. Obama made it clear that no country can impose a ruling regime on the other. He reiterated his respect for regimes that represent the will of their people; freedom, democracy and law, according to Obama, are not only American values. They are global human rights and as America is the world’s leader, it will sponsor them.

This certainly shows how Obama is specifically approaching the issue of supporting democracy. Yet, this is difficult to achieve from a practical point of view. These obligations can differ when being applied to regimes in the region; even though Obama’s administration is now making cooperation with other regional powers a priority, is, working for American interests and is avoiding any other troublesome relationships with Middle Eastern governments. This is because the policies of the Bush administration thought that invasion and dictating orders could spread democracy. However, this caused political Islamic powers to grow stouter. Hamas’ win in the 2005 elections is a good example of this.

However, strangely enough, Obama feared that political Islamic powers would take control. For example, the Lebanese elections did not end with an automatic win by the Islamic opposition that was lead by Hezbollah. The same applies to Iran, where a stout and popular opposition stood in the face of the extremist trend, led by current president, President Ahmadinejad.

And finally, to the third pivotal issue: the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. As a fact, Obama’s language when describing the Palestinians’ suffering and their right to an independent state during his political address is one of a kind. Although he showed clear refusal of the Israeli pursuance for a policy of settlement, he condemned what he called, the reciprocating of violence between Palestine and Israel. So, returning quickly to negotiations must now be a priority. Yet, Obama believes that this is dependent on the catalytic role Arab countries can play via Beirut’s 2002 Arab initiative. Obama needs Arabs to recognize, as he does, that such an initiative is a momentous start for real responsibilities.

This indicates that Obama’s administration is waiting for the Palestinian, the Arab and the Israeli’s responses, with no country exempt from responsibility. In other words, America cannot only pressure Israel to push forward the march towards the peace process. Also, the fact that he has talked about stalling Israeli settlements does not mean that it has happened. On the Palestinian side, there still remains the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. There must be one Palestinian negotiator that is capable of taking the helm of the negotiation process and is responsible for any agreements reached. This is supposed to mean that no single fraction can make any decisions alone.

The other challenge here relates to the current rightist Israeli cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister considers any response to American pressure a collapse in the governing coalition that supports the settlements. Consequently, he needs to focus on coalition building in order to meet American demands or, at least, to abandon this settlement policy under his own cabinet. Still, we cannot overlook the fact that the Israeli lobby totally controls the Congress. This could be another obstacle for Obama’s administration and might bridle its capability to pressure Israel. This also comes at a time when the American administration’s agenda is filled to the brim with internal and external problems, and will need the Congress to help solve them.

Finally, there is something new about Obama’s administration. The solution, which the Palestinian and Israeli states disagree over, was also put forward by the Bush administration. So, where to begin? How can these objectives be turned into tangible and practical steps? This is Obama’s tough mission. Indeed, Obama sought to satisfy all parties in his historic speech in Cairo, either regarding the issue of peace, democracy or the relationship between Islam and the West. In this way, he shall follow a more balanced policy that keeps all the threads in his hand. But will he succeed in doing this?