Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Expectations Build for Obama Mideast Policy Speech

Barack Obama’s planned address this week on Middle Eastern policy will be a harbinger of the administration’s future approach to the region.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

With Jordan's King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu coming to Washington next week, anticipation of a major Middle East policy speech by President Barack Obama set for Thursday is growing rapidly.

A key question on analysts' minds is whether the deadlocked Israel-Palestinian peace process will be part of that speech, which comes on the eve of Netanyahu's visit.

"One cannot separate the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation, sieges, and colonisation from the pro-democracy struggles against autocratic regimes sweeping the Arab world," Professor Stephen Zunes, an expert on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East at the University of San Francisco, told IPS.

The resignation Friday of Obama's Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell strengthens the view that the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate cannot be put off. Mitchell's effective resignation date of May 20, the same day Obama will meet with Netanyahu, puts even more focus on that deadlock, which has been further complicated by this month's Egyptian-mediated reconciliation agreement between the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist group.

King Abdullah is scheduled to visit on Tuesday.

Obama has also been facing growing pressure to clarify the United States' position on the upheavals throughout the Arab world.

Critics are saying that Obama simply has no strategy for how to respond to the Arab Spring.

"We need a broader strategic idea of how to proceed throughout the Middle East, but we obviously don't have one," former George W. Bush administration ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said in a recent Fox News appearance.

Simultaneously, Obama is facing growing pressure from Arab governments and from domestic pro-peace groups to take some steps to revive talks between Israel and the Palestinians. And many of his advisers believe he needs to separate his response to the Arab Spring from a new strategy with the Israelis and Palestinians.

The time for these decisions is now, say many analysts, because of the political credit Obama has recently gained with the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of Obama's deputy national security advisers, told the New York Times that the message will be that "Bin Laden is the past; what's happening in the region is the future."

Some experts believe Obama needs to address Israel-Palestine for that message to have credibility.

"The most important act for the Americans is to push for a fair and equitable settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, even as the west must redefine itself as the open-hearted friend of the new Arab societies emerging from the rubble of dictatorship," wrote Ahmed Rashid, an expert in Afghan and Pakistani politics for the Financial Times.

The prevailing feeling, however, is that Obama will not present a new plan on Israel and the Palestinians next week.

Citing "U.S. officials and Middle East hands," Laura Rozen, the senior foreign policy writer for Yahoo News, and longtime foreign policy writer for Politico, reported that "next week's parade of Middle East visitors and speeches won't be the time for Obama to issue a major new U.S. push for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks…That potential speech, on the U.S. vision for the basis of an Israeli- Palestinian peace settlement, is expected to be delayed until August, ahead of a Palestinian plan to seek a vote recognizing Palestinian statehood at the United Nations in September."

But that idea could have serious consequences for Obama's credibility in the Middle East.

"If Obama lauds the Arab spring in North Africa without alluding to the Arab winter in West Asia, he will have no credibility in either geography," Chas Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told IPS. "If he fails to explain the failure of the botched peace process and the resignation of George Mitchell, he will simply confirm the diplomatic irrelevance of the United States as the U.N. General Assembly prepares to take the Israel-Palestine issue in September."

And that position will find some support in Washington.

"There's clearly a lot going on in the region, and there's a case to be made and some are making it, that now is not the time," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, director of the pro-peace lobbying group, J Street. "But we do believe that the only way to avoid U.N. action on a Palestinian state in a unilateral kind of way is for either the president or prime minister to put forward" a peace plan.

Ben-Ami's position could be satisfied by the expected unveiling of a new U.S. Mideast peace plan in August. But that will be very close to the September deadline of the U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.