Obama in the Middle East Conflict: The Peace Preacher’s New Attempt

In the Middle East peace process, Barack Obama has raised high hopes, but results have failed to materialize. Now the U.S. president is daring to make a new attempt and thus exploit the democratic change in the region. Can he manage a breakthrough?

It has been quite a week for Barack Obama. First of all, the U.S. president prevented the government’s money supply from being cut off by a last-minute agreement with the Republicans. Then he promised to ease America’s national deficit by $4 trillion. Finally, he has very recently began his 2012 election campaign in earnest with the budget debate. In return, Obama’s advisers expect him to collect around $1 billion in donations.

So he has got a fairly full future ahead of him. Now the president is trying to address another massive foreign policy project: peace between Israel and Palestine. It sounds like a joke, but this actually seems to be the latest project from crisis manager Obama. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just announced that “the president will be speaking in greater detail about America’s policy in the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks.” She promised a “renewed pursuit of comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.”

Obama had already reaffirmed in a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres: “With the winds of change blowing through the Arab world, it’s more urgent than ever that we try to seize the opportunity to create a peaceful solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis.” This means that behind the scenes in Washington, Obama will allegedly be making a speech on his new Middle East plan — perhaps before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s next visit to Washington in May.

“We Have Wasted a Lot of Time”

It would be a return to one of the largest challenges of his presidency. After around a year and a half in office, the Democrat Obama can show almost no progress in the region, although he had started with great expectations. The Palestinians in particular hoped for fairer treatment than they had received from his predecessor George W. Bush, who stood steadfast on Israel’s side.

First of all, Obama actually increased the pressure on Israel. He wanted Prime Minister Netanyahu to put a stop to the controversial settlements in the West Bank. But the experienced Israeli skilfully brushed him off. Since then, his relationship with the White House is considered to be ruined. In turn, the Palestinians have consistently refused further negotiations as long as there is no progress in this settlement policy.

In any case, many considered Obama’s fixation on this issue to be a serious mistake. “We have wasted a year and a half on something that for a number of reasons was not achievable,” criticized John Kerry, Democratic chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. But Kerry, a close Obama confidant, believes that the White House will soon make a new attempt.

A Beneficial Opportunity

The opportunity would be beneficial. Ultimately, in light of the uprisings in the Middle East, there is a new diversity of interests. Old leaders are stepping down and new democratic forces are forming. Israel feels more isolated than ever and could be more willing to compromise. This is evidenced by the Huffington Post article about Jerusalem’s precarious situation. “Although Egypt is still adhering to the peace treaty with Israel, this could change at any time. Lebanon is now run by Hezbollah. Turkey, Israel’s one powerful Muslim ally, a strong friend of Israel since its birth, is so disgusted by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians that it is distancing itself as fast as it can. France, Germany or Great Britain have just voted against the U.S. on the U.N. Security Council’s resolution on the settlement policy in the West Bank.”

Obama can hardly do nothing while the upheaval in the Middle East rapidly progresses. Brent Scowcroft, U.S. national security adviser under President George Bush Sr., said: “Remaining silent on deadlocked negotiations over a two state solution, while encouraging greater democratization in other countries, suggests a double standard that damages America’s image in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world.” Clinton also wants to see the U.S. take the lead now and again, with initiatives from the Middle East Quartet — comprising of the EU, the U.N., Russia and the U.S. “There is no substitute for continued active American leadership,” she emphasized.

The U.S. Wants to Move Forward, But Is Under Pressure

The Americans are under time pressure. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, wants to declare Palestine a sovereign state this year, even if a peace agreement with Israel is not achieved by then. The U.N. consider the prerequisites for this to be met. In September, the U.N. General Assembly in New York could provide the ideal stage for such a step. Washington is not satisfied with this; it would prefer a negotiated settlement. Also, Obama’s new plan should probably come before this. In actual fact, the outlines of a Middle East peace plan are indeed defined in enough agreements and action plans. Now the questions remain of whether to divide the country, to give the right of return for refugees or how to guarantee security on both sides.

The political leaders in the Palestinian territories and in Israel are still the biggest problem. Zbigniew Brzezinski, U.S. national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, considers initiating negotiations to be unsatisfactory; the wavering leaders need clear guidelines. According to Brzezinski, a framework plan from the Americans is necessary, as is the determined implementation that should follow.

Crisis Management For the Whole Region

However, the question remains of how much Obama would actually be able to concentrate on such a process. Previous presidents such as Bill Clinton only truly tackled the Middle East problem at the end of their term, because there was not much room for movement in domestic policy and they hoped to have an entry in the history books.

On the other hand, Obama is still in the middle of crisis management, not only in the U.S. but also in foreign policy. He has just intervened in Libya; the situation in Syria and Iran is still profoundly worrying for Washington. Then there is Saudi Arabia, the most important oil-producing country in the world, whose aging leadership is horrified to follow the fall of the other regimes in the region, and feels abandoned by Obama. The democrat Obama may feel inclined to force the autocratic Saudis to change, but Saudi Arabia is too important for this. “A revolt in Saudi Arabia could sink his presidency,” writes Martin Indyk, vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, in the Washington Post. So now high-ranking U.S. government officials are constantly traveling to Saudi Arabia to smooth things over. This shuttle diplomacy could also detract from a new Middle East peace process.

This is why Obama is not currently enjoying the luxury of focusing on a trouble spot.