An Important Moment for Obama

The ongoing war in Gaza has presented a fresh opportunity for a number of countries and personalities to consolidate their positions, hoping to leave an impact on this disastrous situation. Despite no longer enjoying the role of European Union President, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy began with an ambitious diplomatic assignment which bore fruit, an important yet modest ceasefire lasting three hours, so that Gaza could receive humanitarian assistance. Following that the UN Security Council issued a resolution with almost unanimous support.

Conversely, a number of commentators have questioned the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s motive in deciding not to make any comment on these incidents which are of great importance to American national interest.

Obama explained his silence by reminding us that there can only be one president in Washington at any moment (last summer, Obama was criticized for attempting to undermine the Bush administration’s efforts to arrive at an agreement with Iraq concerning the U.S. military presence there).

There is no doubt that Obama would be more effective if he came out with a political position having given it some thought, instead of using various expressions and short responses to satisfy the masses in front of their TV sets. The U.S. President-elect will be presented with an important moment, in which he will have to show his agenda and take initiative. If this moment passes, as it did with former-president Carter, America will find herself obliged to respond to the events, rather than be at the helm. Father Bush’s administration suffered the same fate, missing its first opportunity to state its agenda, ending with his administration being forced to respond to the situation, which was the case after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

The starting point from which the new administration must begin is with a joint analysis of the stance Obama and his most important assistants in foreign affairs will adopt. Currently, one cannot find evidence of this analysis having been done, on the basis of the administration-elect’s previous moves and words. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State-nominee, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense and General James Jones, National Security Advisor-elect, all have greatly differing views on the region. Therefore, Obama’s first task is to prepare a joint paper on this issue.

The soon-to-step-down Bush administration suffered greatly from internal divisions over the Middle East. During Bush’s first presidential period, the Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent their energy undermining the other’s politicking.

Guaranteeing the administration-elect’s unity throughout its reign would be a great achievement in itself. In the coming period, the new administration must realize and recognize that the United States is engaged in a war with a number of forces that wish to challenge her global command, ultimately hoping to destroy it. As much as possible, efforts should be made by Obama’s team to satisfy some of these forces, at least, along traditional diplomatic means. Nonetheless, eventually a message should be sent telling the world that the United States will not turn tail. She will stay fighting whenever it is necessary.

In comparison to all other regions of the world, the Middle East’s weakness necessitates greater boldness on the part of the administration.

No longer is the Middle East a geo-strategic prize, as it was during the Cold War, as much as it is possible that it may become even less important when it comes to meeting the global energy needs in the coming years. Despite this, the region carries a new importance, as it is the primary nest of terrorism and is the coming phase in a dangerous arms race, which might include nuclear weapons.

In as much as the essence of the current war, which is waged by religious radicalism, is ideological, there exists, on the one hand, what we can describe as the Western ideology of human rights, democracy and globalization. Furthermore, there exists, on the other, religious tyranny symbolized by Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden.

For the first time since the constitutional revolutions of the Ottoman Empire and Iran of the 19th century, Democracy appears to be a real choice for a large part of the Greater Middle East. Supporters of democracy (though few in number they are increasing) are appearing in all countries of the region. These people can challenge and defeat that tyranny on the political battlefield and are supported by moderate, conservative and traditional strata of society which do not follow the path of violence.

The process of disclosure will take place throughout the current year, in which presidential, parliamentary and local elections will take place in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. The tyrannical forces have mobilized themselves and have gathered huge resources in order to win in these elections. They might be able to convince on the assumption that the United States has abandoned its allies, both democrat and conservative, after being confronted with a new bloc of enemies which extend from Middle Asia to the Mediterranean. It is incumbent on the new administration to cast out all doubts concerning America’s commitment to the democratic forces in all countries with which she has relations, just as the American support for the democratic process in the Middle East is not a secondary issue, it is an essential requirement for national security.

Notwithstanding its symbolic meaning, the Palestinian question should be taken into consideration on the basis that it is one of the greatest problems in the region and not the “biggest problem in the world.” By framing an offer of a two-state solution, the United States has a strong role in the issue. Nevertheless, it should be clear that America cannot impose this against the wishes of both sides.