Obama’s Mistakes in the Middle East

Published in Publico
(Spain) on 14 October 2012
by Nazanín Armanian (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jenny Westwell. Edited by Jonathan Douglas.
Barack Obama set himself some key objectives in 2008: stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and put the brakes on Iran’s nuclear program.

Four years later, he has achieved none of them, and other challenges are piling up: how to make sense of events in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia — not to mention how to manage the situation in Syria.

Obama has not managed to be the antithesis of George W. Bush, after all. His failings are the product of several factors: his role as president of a militarist empire, his efforts to reconcile the interests of the U.S. elite with instability and prosperity in the Middle East and, finally, his underestimation of Middle Eastern leaders’ capacity for subterfuge.

He got it wrong twice in his Cairo address: firstly, by associating the citizens of Muslim nations with their leaders, many of whom are obscurantist despots; and secondly — speaking from the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood — by promising a new beginning to U.S.-friendly leaders instead of asking forgiveness from the Iraqi and Afghan people for crimes committed by the United States. The same skewed vision drove him to bow before the king of Saudi Arabia and support the religious right-wing during the Arab Spring.

Later, in June 2009, he slipped up over the peaceful protests against electoral fraud in Iran. Chanting “Obama, Obama, ya bauna ya bama” [Obama, either you’re with them or you’re with us], demonstrators warned him of the danger of having a foot in both camps. But the United States president, in the midst of the financial crisis, feared a change beyond his control in this great oil-producing country. Obama was wrong to not support the demonstrators and wrong to shelve the idea of direct dialogue with the Iranian government on bilateral issues. And he’s still getting it wrong. He is increasing the pressure on Iran, though this triggers popular uprisings that may bring the military to power, who in turn will seek out more arms to defend themselves and put an end to so much as a glimmer of an opening up of the Iranian system. If Obama fears a nuclear Iran as well as a war, he must negotiate directly with both the Islamic Republic and Israel.

During the Egyptian Spring, having shifted his stance several times, he backed Brother [Mohamed] Morsi, threatening to withdraw military aid from the Egyptian army if it failed to cede power to the new president. In exchange, he expects Morsi to respect the Camp David agreement and Egypt to continue to act as a counterweight to Shiite Iran.

U.S. involvement in Libya had a catastrophic outcome, drenched in crude oil: the mob killing of the head of a sovereign state, the deaths of thousands of civilians during NATO's hushed-up bombings and weapons given to thousands of mercenaries who have plunged the country into chaos. The murder of Ambassador Stevens by these individuals is the result of “keeping a serpent up your sleeve.”

“He must go” has become a refrain in his irresponsible speeches, in which he does not consider the effects on its citizens and on the entire region when a country’s state machinery is dismantled. In his inability to understand the concept of “class struggle,” he believes that simply changing the head of a state and staging elections automatically leads to political openness and an improved economy.

Obama is a more astute version of Bush, using multilateralism to share out the moral and economic costs of his battles, a strategy of “leading from behind” to reduce United States exposure, and drones to control foreign territories without even setting foot in them.

As You Sow, So Shall You Reap

The Republicans have pushed Obama into “Bushifying” his foreign policy. That way they clear the name of that befuddled individual, while at the same time perpetrating their own political agenda.

Without firm convictions, nor the character to defend them, the president usually has no Plan B and shifts from one position to its opposite without turning a hair. Guantanamo is an example. His charisma and his magnetism conceal his lack of ethics. It is said that, like Don Corleone, he personally selects which members of rival families are to be “whacked” in other territories.*

Confronted with a panorama like this, even the last bastions are withdrawing support for the U.S. Saudi Arabia accused the U.S. of disloyalty to the tyrants during the Arab Spring, and therefore ignored Obama’s calls for political reform in Bahrain, instead sending in tanks to crush its citizens’ protests.

Pakistan, a U.S. ally throughout the “war on terror” thing, is strengthening ties with Beijing and Moscow and getting its own back on Obama, who is busy forging an alliance with India in order to contain China.

In Iraq, despite the presence of thousands of occupying soldiers and mercenaries, the United States no longer enjoys the influence it did under Saddam Hussein. Iraq, which borders Iran, now backs Bashar al-Assad and purchases weaponry from [Vladimir] Putin. Another one that’s backfired. Obama is appealing to Turkey to re-establish religious balance in the region, affording protection to Sunni Muslims.

As for best buddy, Israel, Netanyahu is the foreign head of state who most humiliated the U.S. president. The Israeli prime minister refused to freeze the construction of Jewish settlements and negotiate with the Palestinians, and forced Obama to recant his recognition of Palestinian statehood.

It is not true that peace in the region depends on the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such a focus gives too much weight to those involved, involves others who are not part of the problem and gets in the way of finding a way out of the tangled mess that is the Palestinian tragedy.

U.S. authority has been diminished in this part of the world, which now looks to China and Russia as a counterweight to the power of the West, whose partiality and greed weaken the legitimacy of its proposals.

The problems of the Middle East are beyond the scope of a single political power. United States presidents should stop acting like gods of divine retribution and return the role of mediator in international conflicts to the United Nations.

*Translator’s Note: The author is referring to Obama’s so-called “kill list,” his personal selection of terrorists targeted for elimination by U.S. drone strikes.


Estabilizar Irak y Afganistán, reanimar el proceso de paz palestino-israelí y paralizar el programa nuclear de Irán a través del diálogo fueron los principales objetivos que se fijó Barack Obama en 2008.

Cuatro años después no ha logrado ninguno y se le acumulan, además, otros desafíos: entender lo que sucede en Libia, Egipto, Yemen y Arabia y, por otro lado, cómo manejar la situación de Siria.

Los errores de Obama, hombre que a pesar de todo no ha conseguido ser la antítesis de George W. Bush, son producto de varios factores: su rol de presidente de un imperio militarista, sus intentos de reconciliar los intereses de la élite de Estados Unidos con la estabilidad y la prosperidad en Oriente Medio y, finalmente, subestimar la capacidad de los líderes embusteros de Oriente Medio para hacer trampas.

En su discurso en El Cairo cometió un doble error: identificar a la población de los Estados musulmanes con sus dirigentes —muchos, déspotas y oscurantistas— y, desde la sede de los Hermanos Musulmanes, prometer a los líderes sátrapas buenos comienzos en vez de pedir perdón a los pueblos de Irak y Afganistán por los crímenes cometidos por Estados Unidos. La misma mirada mutilada que le llevó a inclinarse ante el rey de Arabia Saudí y apoyar a la derecha religiosa durante la Primavera Árabe.

Luego, en junio del 2009, tropezó con las protestas pacíficas en Irán contra el fraude electoral. Con sus proclamas de “Obama, Obama, ya bauna ya bama” (Obama, o estás con ellos o con nosotros), los manifestantes le advirtieron del coste de jugar en dos bandos a la vez. Pero al presidente estadounidense le asustaba un cambio sin control en este gran productor de petróleo, en medio de la crisis financiera. Falló Obama en no apoyar a los manifestantes y también en aparcar la idea del diálogo directo con el Gobierno de Irán para tratar los asuntos bilaterales. Hoy, sigue errando: aumentar la presión sobre Irán, aunque provoque rebeliones populares, llevará al poder a los militares, quienes buscarán más armas para defenderse y pondrán fin a cualquier atisbo de una apertura interna. Si Obama teme un Irán nuclear, al igual que una guerra con él, debe negociar con la República Islámica e Israel directamente.

En la primavera de Egipto, tras cambiar varias veces de postura, apoyó al Hermano Musri, amenazando al Ejército egipcio con cerrarle el grifo si no le cedía el poder al nuevo presidente. A cambio espera que Musri respete el acuerdo de Camp David y Egipto siga siendo un contrapeso al Irán chiita.

Éxito catastrófico empapado de petróleo fue su aventura en Libia: asesinato gangsteriano (con un agente francés y Hillary Clinton en el ajo) del jefe de un estado soberano, la muerte de miles de civiles durante los silenciados bombardeos de la OTAN y el regalo de armas a miles de mercenarios que han hundido el país en el caos. El crimen del embajador Stevens por estos individuos es el resultado de “criar una serpiente en la manga”.

Fulanito “tiene que irse” es ya un estribillo de sus irresponsables discursos, en los que no medita las efectos que tiene desmantelar un Estado para los ciudadanos y para una región entera. Al no entender el concepto de “lucha de clases”, cree que el simple cambio de un mandatario y montar cuatro urnas conllevan a la apertura política y la mejora económica.

Obama es un Bush astuto: con el multilateralismo reparte los costos morales y económicos de sus batallas; con la estrategia de “liderar desde atrás” reduce la exposición de Estados Unidos y empleando drones se hace con el control de territorios ajenos, sin poner las botas en el suelo.

Cosecha pulgas quien no siembra soja [in bold in the origianl article]

Los republicanos han empujado a Obama a bushizar su política exterior: así limpian el nombre de aquel ofuscado personaje, a la vez que llevan adelante su agenda política.

Sin convicciones firmes, ni carácter para defenderlas, el presidente no suele tener un plan B y pasa de una posición a la contraria sin despeinarse: Guantánamo es un ejemplo. Su carisma y su magnetismo encubren su falta de ética. Dicen que él, como Don Corleone, elije personalmente a quien hay que eliminar de las otras familias y en otros territorios .

Ante este panorama, durante su mandato los bastiones de EEUU han dejado de serlo:

Arabia le acusó de desleal y de abandonar a los tiranos en aquellas Primaveras. Así que el reino saudí ignoró la indicación de Obama para realizar reformas en Bahrein y envió tanques que aplastaron las protestas de los ciudadanos.

Pakistán, que fue su aliado en el tinglado de “lucha contra el terror”, fortalece lazos con Pekín y Moscú, vengándose así de Obama, quien busca alianzas con la India para contener a China.

Irak, aún ocupado por miles de soldados y mercenarios contratados, ha puesto fin a la influencia que Estados Unidos tuvo en la era de Saddam. Ahora, próximo a Irán, Irak respalda a Bashir al Assad y compra armas a Putin. Un tiro por la culata. Obama recurre a Turquía para que restablezca el equilibrio religioso, protegiendo al sunismo en la zona.

En cuanto al intimísimo Israel, Netanyahu es el que más ha humillado al presidente de Estado Unidos. El primer ministro israelí se negó a congelar los asentamientos y negociar con los palestinos, y forzó a Obama para que no reconociera a un Estado palestino.

No es cierto que la paz en la zona dependa de la solución del conflicto entre palestinos e israelíes. Este enfoque, además, otorga demasiado peso a los implicados, incluye a quienes son ajenos al problema e impide buscar una salida a la enredada tragedia palestina.

Se ha diluido la autoridad de Estados Unidos en esta región del mundo, que busca en China y Rusia un contrapeso al poder occidental que con su parcialidad y codicia resta legitimidad a sus propuestas.

Los problemas de allí desbordan a una sola potencia. Que los presidentes de Estados Unidos dejen de hacer de Némesis y devuelvan a la ONU el papel de mediador de los conflictos.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Spain: The New American Realism

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Australia: Donald Trump Made MAGA a Promise on the Epstein Files. They Are Holding Him to It

Topics

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?