Right Web

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

Obama’s Quick Start Raises Hopes

Within days of his inauguration, Obama had already begun to take substantive steps toward jumpstarting Arab-Israeli peace process.

(Inter Press Service)

A series of unexpectedly swift moves to begin addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict taken by Barack Obama in the week since he was sworn in as the U.S. president is being hailed by many regional specialists here who were deeply frustrated by George W. Bush’s relative indifference and virtually unconditional support for Israel.

"The speed with which he has engaged on this is really stunning," said Shibley Telhami, an expert on Arab public opinion at the University of Maryland. "While it’s too early to tell whether he’s prepared to make the difficult policy trade-offs, I’d have to say that he’s off to a fantastic start."

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly promised to begin working for Israeli-Palestinian peace "from day one" of his tenure and criticized his predecessor for waiting until his last year in office to launch the so-called "Annapolis process" which failed to make any tangible progress toward resolving the critical "final status" issues.

Within 24 hours of his inauguration, he had telephoned the leaders of Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Jordan apparently to reiterate that commitment. One day later, he announced the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell, who mediated the 1995 Good Friday accord that helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, as his special envoy on Israel-Arab negotiations, a post that some had feared might be given to Dennis Ross.

By Tuesday, Mitchell had arrived in Cairo for a "listening" tour of the region that will include visits with those same leaders, as well as a stop in Saudi Arabia, whose strong support for the revival of the 2002 Arab League peace initiative is considered vital for progress.

Meanwhile, Obama gave his first television interview as president—even before the major U.S. networks—to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya company Monday in which he reiterated his commitment to work on Israeli-Palestinian peace as a priority, praised the Arab League plan, and offered a "new partnership" with the Arab and the Muslim world "based on mutual respect and mutual interest."

"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," he told interviewer Hisham Melham. At the same time, he stressed that he understood that "people are going to judge me not by my words, but by my actions and my administration’s actions."

"And I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity," he added.

While all of these steps have not yet translated into the kind of concrete "actions" that Obama said his administration will be judged by, they have clearly given heart to Middle East experts here who felt that they had been ignored for most of the past eight years.

"I’m accustomed to being disappointed," said retired Col. Pat Lang, a former top Middle East intelligence analyst at the Pentagon, who had been among the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration’s neglect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and its refusal to take seriously Arab and Muslim grievances about Washington’s strong support for Israel.

"What I see so far seems rather hopeful; at least there’s a lot of attention being paid to the [Arab-Israeli] conflict, instead of a refusal to deal with it. I’m willing to wait and see and hope for the best," he told IPS.

Marc Lynch, another specialist on Arab public opinion at George Washington University, was particularly thrilled by Obama’s performance on Al Arabiya, writing on his much-read blog in Foreign Policy that, ”It’s impossible to exaggerate the symbolic importance" of Obama’s choice of an Arabic satellite station for his first formal interview as president "and of taking that opportunity to talk frankly about a new relationship with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and emphasizing listening rather than dictating."

"I couldn’t have written the script better myself," he noted, adding that Obama’s reference to "words" and "actions" showed his appreciation that "public diplomacy is not about marketing a lousy policy—it’s about engaging honestly, publicly, and directly with foreign publics about those policies, explaining and listening and adjusting where appropriate."

Telhami, who served as an informal advisor to the Obama campaign, was similarly impressed, noting that the new president made a number of key points that highlighted his differences with Bush, particularly his acknowledgement that the Arab-Israeli conflict is "central" to the region. "This is totally different from the neoconservative view that the conflict has nothing to do with other issues in the region [that are] important to the U.S."

Indeed, the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict was brought home to the new administration late last week in the form of a stunningly blunt column by the former Saudi ambassador here, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who denounced the "sickening legacy" left by the Bush administration in the region and its complicity in Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

He warned that Washington’s "special relationship" with the kingdom was at risk "unless the new U.S. administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians," including promoting the Saudi-inspired Arab League initiative, which offers normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal to its 1967 borders.

Lang told IPS that the column, which was published by the Financial Times, may have played a role in the decision to grant Al Arabiya the first television interview. "This is a deliberate gesture [by Obama] to say to the Saudis that ‘I really am serious, and I’m not fooling around,’" he said.

Indeed, Israel’s three-week Gaza campaign, in which more than 1,300 Palestinians were killed, may have spurred Obama, who declined to comment about the assault while Bush was still president, to move more quickly than he had originally planned to reassure Arab opinion that he considered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority, even at a time when the country is dealing with a major financial crisis and two wars.

"I think Gaza has had a far more profound impact than I anticipated, and I would say there’s more disbelief in the region in the possibility of peace [with Israel] by far than a month ago," said Telhami. "Both his actions so far and the interview would have generated much more optimism, had the bloodshed in Gaza not taken place."

Lynch, too, had warned before the Al Arabiya interview that the Gaza campaign and Bush administration support for it had "poisoned the well" for Obama in a number of ways that he would have to overcome to gain credibility in the Arab world. "If—and only if—Obama demonstrates serious changes in U.S. policy in the region, he will find many takers," he warned.

While the tone appears to have changed quite substantially, Obama has yet to make clear that policy changes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will follow.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Citations

Analysis by Jim Lobe, "Obama's Quick Start Raises Hopes" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2009). Web location:
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4978.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share