pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
Obamas new Middle East? Dont hold your breath
Tony Karon
November 8. 2008
Barack Obamas stunning election victory represented a profound revolution in Americas self-identity, but many abroad seem to have mistaken it for a portent of profound changes in the foreign posture of the US. I was flabbergasted, for example, by an e-mail from a South African friend wondering if Obama would free the five Cubans currently serving long prison terms for spying on the US (in fact, he probably wont even end the US embargo of Cuba).
Obama was propelled to victory by a broad popular antiwar movement, and that sense of the consummate outsider (a black man) running an insurgent campaign against the political establishment (John McCain and, before him, Hillary Clinton) that had backed the Iraq war has encouraged people to project all sorts of fantasies on to a man whose own stated policy positions are decidedly centrist.
Obamas first appointment helped to douse fevered expectations of any revolutionary change, You could hear the collective groan of anguish from the Middle East when Obama named Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff. Emmanuels father was a member of Israels Irgun militia in the 1940s, and he himself served as a volunteer on an Israeli military base in 1991. Moreover, as a Congressman, Emmanuel had written letters to the Bush Administration accusing it of being too tough on Israel (a view not widely shared in the Middle East). In Washington, his appointment drew wry comments from Republicans, who noted that the legendary political brawler hardly epitomised the new politics of civility promised in Obamas change rhetoric. The response from an Obama insider is worth noting: Obama is the change, the official said, referring to his being the first black President. Right now what America is looking for in a cabinet is competence, expertise and credibility. In other words, continuity.
And continuity is exactly what the Middle East should expect from a President Obama, at least initially. Asked about Iran during his first press conference as President-elect, he reiterated US talking points about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and demanding that it end support for terrorism. For the rest, hell wait to formulate a new approach presumably until after next years Iranian presidential election.
On Israel and the Palestinians, hes likely to keep the (increasingly pointless) conversation going on between the Palestinian Authority and the current Israeli government, pending the outcome of Israels election and negotiations over restoring a Palestinian national unity government. His approach will be nowhere near as ideological as the Bush Administration has been, but the same pragmatism is likely to restrain him from initiating any dramatic policy shifts on that conflict lest it arouse opposition in a Congress dominated by a militantly pro-Israel bipartisan consensus (never mind what his chief of staff might say!). The smart money says he wont make enemies on Capitol Hill and endanger his domestic priority the economy by pushing to resolve a conflict that few in the Washington establishment believe can be settled soon.
Mr Obamas election could still have a significant impact on the Middle East, of course. In Israel, for example, which votes for a new prime minister in January, concern over the prospect of an American president more inclined towards dialogue with Iran than President Bush has been may boost the prospects of the right-wing Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu.
The acting prime minister, Tzipi Livni, hopes to make the election a referendum on peace with the Palestinians a receding political priority in Israel in the light of the perceived threat from Iran, the relative calm achieved by the ceasefire with Hamas and the threat of civil war from militant settlers who have no intention of leaving the occupied territories.
In Iran, Mr Obamas election is bad news for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the dire weaknesses of Irans economy exposed by the falling price of oil, the president elected on a promise of sharing the oil wealth has no easy path to re-election next June. Rallying patriotic sentiment against an external threat would have been his best bet, but Mr Obama hardly fits the Great Satan stereotype. He offers the prospect of a respectful dialogue with Iran, whose voters may therefore be more likely to return a pragmatic conservative or even a reformer to the presidency. And that, in turn, will ease the path to greater engagement.
In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will welcome Obamas election, seeing it as reinforcing his efforts to persuade the US to agree to a withdrawal deadline and help him to claim in regional and national elections next year that he is the man who is ending the occupation. Unfortunately for both Maliki and Obama, Iraqs electoral politics remain dominated by ethnicity, sect and faction, with its most powerful players usually being those with the most men under arms. As much as the US election hastens an end to the US mission there, next years Iraqi elections could create security crises that slow an American withdrawal.
In short, little will change here in the first year of an Obama Administration: his focus will be domestic. In Iraq, the US scaling down is already, arguably, under way; on Iran, Obama will probably continue diplomatic pressure over its nuclear programme, and await a change in Irans diplomatic posture after a new president is elected next summer. Israelis and Palestinians will be left to resolve their leadership disputes; while all regional peace efforts started by the likes of Turkey, Qatar, the Saudis and others in exasperation at the failures of the Bush Administration will probably be encouraged. In other words, more continuity than change.
Tony Karon
November 8. 2008
Barack Obamas stunning election victory represented a profound revolution in Americas self-identity, but many abroad seem to have mistaken it for a portent of profound changes in the foreign posture of the US. I was flabbergasted, for example, by an e-mail from a South African friend wondering if Obama would free the five Cubans currently serving long prison terms for spying on the US (in fact, he probably wont even end the US embargo of Cuba).
Obama was propelled to victory by a broad popular antiwar movement, and that sense of the consummate outsider (a black man) running an insurgent campaign against the political establishment (John McCain and, before him, Hillary Clinton) that had backed the Iraq war has encouraged people to project all sorts of fantasies on to a man whose own stated policy positions are decidedly centrist.
Obamas first appointment helped to douse fevered expectations of any revolutionary change, You could hear the collective groan of anguish from the Middle East when Obama named Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff. Emmanuels father was a member of Israels Irgun militia in the 1940s, and he himself served as a volunteer on an Israeli military base in 1991. Moreover, as a Congressman, Emmanuel had written letters to the Bush Administration accusing it of being too tough on Israel (a view not widely shared in the Middle East). In Washington, his appointment drew wry comments from Republicans, who noted that the legendary political brawler hardly epitomised the new politics of civility promised in Obamas change rhetoric. The response from an Obama insider is worth noting: Obama is the change, the official said, referring to his being the first black President. Right now what America is looking for in a cabinet is competence, expertise and credibility. In other words, continuity.
And continuity is exactly what the Middle East should expect from a President Obama, at least initially. Asked about Iran during his first press conference as President-elect, he reiterated US talking points about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and demanding that it end support for terrorism. For the rest, hell wait to formulate a new approach presumably until after next years Iranian presidential election.
On Israel and the Palestinians, hes likely to keep the (increasingly pointless) conversation going on between the Palestinian Authority and the current Israeli government, pending the outcome of Israels election and negotiations over restoring a Palestinian national unity government. His approach will be nowhere near as ideological as the Bush Administration has been, but the same pragmatism is likely to restrain him from initiating any dramatic policy shifts on that conflict lest it arouse opposition in a Congress dominated by a militantly pro-Israel bipartisan consensus (never mind what his chief of staff might say!). The smart money says he wont make enemies on Capitol Hill and endanger his domestic priority the economy by pushing to resolve a conflict that few in the Washington establishment believe can be settled soon.
Mr Obamas election could still have a significant impact on the Middle East, of course. In Israel, for example, which votes for a new prime minister in January, concern over the prospect of an American president more inclined towards dialogue with Iran than President Bush has been may boost the prospects of the right-wing Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu.
The acting prime minister, Tzipi Livni, hopes to make the election a referendum on peace with the Palestinians a receding political priority in Israel in the light of the perceived threat from Iran, the relative calm achieved by the ceasefire with Hamas and the threat of civil war from militant settlers who have no intention of leaving the occupied territories.
In Iran, Mr Obamas election is bad news for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the dire weaknesses of Irans economy exposed by the falling price of oil, the president elected on a promise of sharing the oil wealth has no easy path to re-election next June. Rallying patriotic sentiment against an external threat would have been his best bet, but Mr Obama hardly fits the Great Satan stereotype. He offers the prospect of a respectful dialogue with Iran, whose voters may therefore be more likely to return a pragmatic conservative or even a reformer to the presidency. And that, in turn, will ease the path to greater engagement.
In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will welcome Obamas election, seeing it as reinforcing his efforts to persuade the US to agree to a withdrawal deadline and help him to claim in regional and national elections next year that he is the man who is ending the occupation. Unfortunately for both Maliki and Obama, Iraqs electoral politics remain dominated by ethnicity, sect and faction, with its most powerful players usually being those with the most men under arms. As much as the US election hastens an end to the US mission there, next years Iraqi elections could create security crises that slow an American withdrawal.
In short, little will change here in the first year of an Obama Administration: his focus will be domestic. In Iraq, the US scaling down is already, arguably, under way; on Iran, Obama will probably continue diplomatic pressure over its nuclear programme, and await a change in Irans diplomatic posture after a new president is elected next summer. Israelis and Palestinians will be left to resolve their leadership disputes; while all regional peace efforts started by the likes of Turkey, Qatar, the Saudis and others in exasperation at the failures of the Bush Administration will probably be encouraged. In other words, more continuity than change.
