A Look at President Obama's Middle East Policy

On June 4, 2009, President Barack Obama from Cairo called the Muslim world to join him in his effort for a two-state solution in the Middle East. The speech had a two-fold purpose. From one hand, President Obama needed to put an end to the arduous relationship between America and the Muslim community. On the other hand, he needed supporters to back him up in the ambitious plan of bringing peace in the Middle East, a plan that had long failed since the Bush administration or even before.

The two-state solution is the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the consensus agreement that will bring the Israelis and the Palestinians to meet their aspirations to live in peace and security side by side. This is pretty much what the Bush administration proposed, yet clearly favoring the Israeli policies. Unlike President George W. Bush, President Obama stated in Cairo that "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements and that the current construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace."

The Israeli response to President Obama's speech was immediate. Israelis consider that the United States fully subscribe to the Arab revisionist version of history by denying them their right to exist in their own land and by deeming their existence to Israel Illegitimate. For the moment, Israel denies to freeze any settlement.

In the United States, reactions to President Obama's speech from American Jewish and Muslim communities have been mixed. In majority, as expected, the reaction of American Muslims has been positive. Seeing it as a the first solid action toward the freezing of Israeli settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem, American Muslims consider that Obama administration might ultimately solve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the other hand, American Jews are confused. Some favor the two-state solution as a way to bring piece in the region provided that the Muslims respect and recognize the historical rights of Israelis on their land. However, American Jews, as well as Israelis, oppose to President Obama's statement that Jewish legitimacy to the land is derived from the Holocaust. Although the Holocaust played a key role in Israel's creation, the Israeli presence in the region is being traced since King Solomon (1000 B.C. to 922 B.C.) and King David (1035 B.C. to 961 B.C.) and their ties to the region are thousands years old.

In relation to Iraq, there is no doubt that U.S. foreign policy has been imperialistic. Although it has been six years since the Iraq invasion to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppressive ruling and disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and although withdrawal has been announced, nearly 50,000 US troops still occupy Iraq's major cities. President Obama wanted to diversify his position from Bush administration. However, it looks like he is keeping the same military and political position, but in order to recover control he proposed tactical retreat from Iraq.

The movement for human rights and democracy in Iran has been in progress for nearly 20 years. The revolutionary developments in Iran and the policy of regime change require delicate handling from the United States so that the balance in the region is not distorted. Besides, President Obama considers that direct negotiations with Iran are necessary in regards to its nuclear program. In exchange, the United States offer economic engagement, security assurance and diplomatic relations with Iran.

Although President Obama strives to differentiate his image and policies from the Republican administration of former President Bush, the American people, and presumably the rest of the world, begin to realize that he practically continues the present system. Most likely he doesn't have much of an option. The global crisis of capitalism had a profound impact on the U.S. economy and left no stable regime in the Middle East. From Jordan to Iran and from Egypt to Israel, all regimes are politically unstable for the moment and sharp changes in the world's balance require cautious steps. At the same time, Russia, ready to recapture the lost grounds and to exercise their imperialistic agenda, protests against U.S. permanent bases in their sphere of influence. And China is becoming the future superpower or the world.

In such a turbulent environment, there is not much room for differentiation. However, what President Obama definitely does different than President Bush is that he engages in dialogue and peaceful solutions than in wars and imperialistic solutions that will bring nothing more than more wars and further conflicts. And ultimately, this might give him much more credit in the Israeli and the Palestinian world.