The Obama effect on the Middle East

When Lebanon’s elections went to a pro-West coalition last week, hopes were soon raised in the western media that Iranian voters would choose a similar patch and oust incumbent Mahmud Ahmadinejad from office. While still hotly contested, it would appear the election will instead leave Iran with the status quo. There was similar anticipation ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech that he might use the opportunity to respond to the initiative Obama launched in Cairo. His speech fell short of what Obama asked and it has been widely panned in both Gaza and the West Bank by the Palestinian leadership. The pessimists about peace in our lifetime are certainly reinforced by the events of the last 48 hours.

Already, Republican spokespersons like Representative Mike Pence are calling on Obama to move away from what he called “the olive branch and apology”-strategy to a more hardline stance. In other words, go back to the approach and policies of the Bush-Cheney years. Others are concluding that there is no Obama effect in the Middle East. This morning, the New York Times editorialized that Ahmadinejad may now have a stronger hand. Soon, opinion leaders will surmise that Obama may have to change course. I disagree.

Change never comes easy. In the Middle East, it is made more complicated by religious and political struggles with biblical origins. Recent history is not encouraging—we have moved from war to occupation to terrorism and to aborted peace processes. That Obama tried so early in his presidency to break the cycle is change in itself. Furthermore, the weekend’s events show that Iran is changing and the West would be wise to let the universe unfold as it should. It is time to be patient and wise instead of acting in haste.

With 70% of the population under 30 and with the pervasive effect of technology, it is reasonable to expect that Iran is on an inevitable course of change. In remembering Tiananmen Square last week, there were questions about the impact it had. One thing is sure: China is far from a liberal democracy, but it is far different from what it was 20 years ago. The involvement of Iranian youth took the Supreme Leader Khamenei and the religious/political elite by surprise, which may account for the results, the credible doubts about the outcome and the harsh reaction from the authorities. But make no mistake about it, this election was not a marginal event.

As for the Israeli Prime Minister, I believe he went as far as he could given the circumstances. I am not a big Bibi fan, but recognition of a Palestinian state, no matter what limits he would want to impose on it, is a significant step forward. What more could he do with a fragile coalition, especially when the very neighbour he is being asked to appease still questions Israel’s right to exist and has not rejected the use of terrorism? There is no doubt that Israel outlined a negotiating position and not a final outcome scenario.

Israeli leaders are in wait-and-see mode to evaluate the Obama effect in the Arab world: is Obama succeeding in giving voice to the Arab youth of the streets or the moderates in the political world? No president has gone as far or has appealed so openly for transformational change in the region. This brand of change will require attitudinal and rhetorical changes by all concerned in the region. It will not come easy. But if peace is a shared goal, then it is too early to conclude the Obama effect is a failure.

Obama may be a novice on the world stage but he has proven himself to be a hard-nosed pol. He may appeal to idealism in his oratory, but his actions speak more of realism and pragmatism. His team in the region includes Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell, Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross and others who are capable, savvy advisors and operatives. The challenge for Obama will be to resist naysayers at home who will do their best to undermine the American people’s support of his efforts—opponents like Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity. Until now , Obama has resisted responding to those in doubt or those who criticize. He must continue that kind of leadership. If he is to have any lasting effect on the Middle East, he will have to stay the course he outlined .




Browse

The Obama effect on the Middle East

  1. I am feeling that nothing will. change. Israel may have to take Iran's nuclear program out . I do not wish that but the Obama effect has been next to nothing .

  2. i agree we should be cool and stay cool . Obama is making some progress despite what happened this weekend . The Mullahs are corrupt .

  3. Well, I do think it's a wait and see- but Obama will need to put more pressure on Israel. Why is it that no one mentions Israel's use of terrorism? Even if it is state-sponsored, it is no less deplorable than the tactics of Palestianian terrorists. The only difference is it is much more effective and deadly. Iran, it appears, may be taking matters into their own hands by protesting the election results with the even the Supreme Ayatollah reversing his position and calling for a review. Perhaps this is the effect of Obama, John? I'm skeptical but then I wonder if this would have happened with Bush still in power. Hmm, could it simply be a case of honey attracts more than vinegar? Perhaps it is Obama's stance that has inspired the young Iranians to want a more pro-West leadership. Or perhaps it is as simple as they do not think Obama's America means them harm, while it was clear that Bush's America did.

    • Obama needs to put more pressure on Israel . But right now he is changing the dynamic in the Middle East . Better he not take sides for now .

  4. Uh what "intolerable" meddling is Iran referring to? Did they expect Obama to endorse the results of a corrupt election?

Sign in to comment.