WORLD_ What does Obama's win mean for the Middle East?

What does Obama's win mean for the Middle East?

By David Blair World Last updated: November 9th, 2012
268 Comments
Comment on this article





When American presidents are liberated from the need to win re-election, they often devote more time to foreign policy. Barack Obama in his second term is unlikely to be an exception. So what does his victory mean for the Middle East? At the moment, the region has three burning crises – Syria, Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would argue that Obama’s second term means “no change” for the first two, and potentially a very big change indeed for the last. Let me explain.

On Syria and Iran, America has a settled policy. In both cases, Washington will maximise the pressure on the regimes, but avoid going to war if at all possible. In Syria, that means isolating President Bashar al-Assad, tightening the net of sanctions and strengthening his opponents, although probably not by the direct supply of weapons. Obama has taken a clear decision that the US will not intervene militarily in Syria (which, incidentally, closes down that option for his allies, notably Britain and France).

If the bloodshed escalates to the point where neighbouring countries are dragged into the civil war, with millions of refugees fleeing Syria and the regime’s stockpile of chemical weapons going on the loose – all of which are conceivable scenarios for the year ahead – then Obama might be compelled to think again about military options. But if he can stay out of Syria’s civil war, then he will.

As for Iran, Obama has set a clear course. America will tighten sanctions on Tehran, while offering direct negotiations to settle the nuclear issue. Obama’s second term will open a small window for a peaceful settlement, probably after Iran’s own presidential election is out of the way in June. Obama has stated categorically that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on his watch. If it really comes to the crunch, I think he probably would be prepared to go to war to avert this outcome. But he will do his utmost to prevent the crunch from arriving.

In respect of both Iran and Syria, Obama has already made the key decisions. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, he has an urgent choice to make. Will he try again to revive the moribund so-called “peace process”? Is he willing to invest time and political and diplomatic capital on an enterprise with such slender hopes of success? Or will he quietly let the matter rest?

If Obama is going to try again, he will have to start soon, so this will be one of his first decisions (avoiding or deferring the issue will be the same as deciding not to try). As he ponders his options, he will no doubt remember his experience the first time around.

In January 2009, the newly elected President Obama resolved to make the quest for an Arab-Israeli settlement one of his key priorities. His first call from the Oval Office was to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. Obama then took a crucial decision: he placed America’s weight behind a central Palestinian demand, namely that Israel should freeze all settlement activity before peace talks could begin.

Benjamin Netanyahu, then a new Israeli prime minister, eventually responded with a partial settlement freeze, excluding East Jerusalem, and time-limited for 10 months. The talks restarted and got nowhere. Then the settlement freeze expired and the Palestinians walked out of the negotiations.

Obama asked the Israeli government to renew the freeze; when it refused, he accepted this verdict and quietly abandoned his request. And there, in brief, ended his attempt to resolve the conflict in his first term. Along the way, other US allies in the region also ignored Obama’s urgings to give the Israelis some “sweeteners” to help them renew the settlement freeze. Saudi Arabia, for example, declined to open its airspace to El Al jets.

Put bluntly, the warring tribes were allowed to ignore the superpower – and get away with it. Obama made one of the worst mistakes a Great Power is capable of. He made a public demand and, when it was refused, he simply walked away without enforcing a penalty. Netanyahu was allowed to face down Obama. If he wins a new term as Israeli prime minister in January – which seems the probable outcome of Israel’s impending election – Netanyahu will have the psychological advantage of knowing that he has already bested Obama once.

So the president will have to decide: are there any circumstances under which he would be willing to exert direct pressure on Israel? If he asks for another settlement freeze, he has to mean it – and to be willing to punish defiance. If Obama isn’t prepared to do this, then it’s best not to ask. In other words, you cannot credibly pursue peace in the Middle East unless you are willing to use every tool in the locker. Put bluntly, a superpower can only break the deadlock if it’s prepared to throw its weight about.

That doesn’t just mean bashing the Israelis: it also means exerting direct pressure on the Arab powers and, indeed, on the Palestinians if necessary. In other words, you either go in with everything you have, or stay out entirely. There is no middle way. Obama has a stark decision to make.


Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, Israel, middle east, Palestine, Syria

*** 281 Comments
Read more: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100188757/what-does-obamas-win-mean-for-the-middle-east/

_____________

What do you think ?




Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .




conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
15112012
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC