OBAMA AND THE MIDDLE EAST MESS

President Obama, barely six months into his Presidency, amidst great excitement bordering on mania, laid out his vision of the Middle East, at the University of Cairo. This followed his sensational emergence as the leader of the world’s most powerful nation. It appears to be a distant memory the expectations that Barak Obama engendered with his historic campaign and election. If it needs reminding, to accommodate the crowd of 75,000 for his Democratic nomination acceptance speech in 2008, a football field was commandeered. His Presidential inauguration oration, in 2009, saw the entire length of the Mall opened for the first time to squeeze in nearly 2,000,000 citizens as he expounded his vision for home and abroad. Just 6 months prior to his inauguration, he addressed, at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, ecstatic crowds that far exceeded any seen since JFK addressed the Berliners.

The new political rock star spoke of his New World Order. Audiences of tens of thousands were the order of the day wherever he  made a major speech - and this charismatic eloquent orator rarely disappointed. The anticipation and hope that this iconic trailblazer brought to the world was epitomized in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009. He was the first to agree that this accolade was made in the belief of what his philosophy and leadership might lead to and not what he had achieved to  date. 

Sadly, Obama who is a good and honest man misread the deep divisions and politics in the Middle East. That fact and several events that were totally out of his control made his Cairo declaration, where he laid out his foreign policy priorities and gave hope to the region, now appear wide - eyed.  It is so much easier being an activist agitating for change as opposed to effecting it as the latter needs votes and or the modification of the behavior of others. The first African American President had a touching, if not naive belief in the rationality of all the players and for the life of him he could not imagine reasonable people, in the right circumstances, with America’s leadership not reaching compromise. His modus operandi was based on the assumption that everyone was coming from the same place. (Even in America where he has been transformative he has found it very difficult to bridge the widening gap between the two parties).

At the end of the day he offered very little to follow through on his inspiring oratory that fateful day in Cairo. 

CHANGE THE WORLD ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST

Besides his ambitious domestic agenda, where he achieved far more success, Obama was going to change the world and thereby make it a both a better and safer place. Central to this was an accompanying desire for America to be non interventionist, have a commitment to support and spread democratic order, and to address the need for a major change in America’s negative attitude towards the Muslim countries. 

First, he had to see to unfinished business. He needed to hasten the troops out of Iraq as had been arranged by Bush 43 and clean out the Taliban in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda had found protection. He even subsequently eliminated Osama Bin Laden with a gutsy call that if gone wrong would have resulted in the usual hate filled criticism that he was constantly subject to. The neophyte President had to have closed his eyes to the looming stormy clouds of chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan’s mission accomplished assessment must have been made more in hope than in sincerity. However, Iraq was not his fault, he never would have ventured there in the first place, and there was no way he was going to go Russian in Afghanistan. He had stated limit objectives which he claimed he had achieved. His main docket now was togetherness with the Muslim countries, a Palestinian and Israeli accord and neutralizing Iran ‘s potential nuclear capability. 

OBAMA’S CAIRO MANIFESTO

He laid out his approach to the Muslim world and the Middle East in a major policy speech in Cairo on June 2009, entitled “A New Beginning”. He dwelt on the rich history of Islam and reassured that America, while at war with extremists, would never be at war with Islam. In addition to the recognized Middle East tensions that he felt needed urgent resolution, he focussed attention on four additional areas that might have provoked some controversy in the Middle East - women’s rights, religious freedom, economic development and education and of course democracy. 

There were vey important subtexts to this manifesto: It took place in non democratic Egypt, which was America’s long standing ally; Following upon his Cairo visit he visited other Arab nations in the region but snubbed Israel; His analysis implied that all the Muslims and Middle East Muslim nations themselves were a homogenous mass and he did not take into account the gaping sectarian and political divisions; He had no foreboding that in stating his democratic priorities he could antagonize the leadership of America’s allies thereby upsetting the delicate balance of American interests in the region.

 The most important factor looming over the speech was that the United States, which was the most powerful country in the world and claimed to value democratic principles above all else, was sending a message of hope which could be interpreted as support to reformers in the region. Obama might well have heeded President Teddy Roosevelt, who even at the turn of the century argued that the USA should not just preach without being able to follow through concretely as that could raise expectations. The region was not to know that for practical purposes Obama was not going to back up his rhetoric with diplomatic support or guns.

WHAT LEAD UP TO TODAY?

The Middle East of 2008 and today is unimaginably altered and the Commander in Chief has found it extremely difficult to cobble together a coherent response to the dramatic changes that have transpired. Two main events followed his hope inspiring intervention in Cairo - The Iranian Green Revolution and The Arab Spring. 

Arab Spring.

The centerpiece of Arab transformations started in 2010 and was labelled “The Arab Spring”. Nearly all the Arab countries were rocked by revolutionary forces that were attempting to overthrow their current nondemocratic and repressive regimes. Four countries saw a government ousted - Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and Libya. Obama’s response was different to all four. He was only vaguely interested in Yemen. Tunisia, a country that did it on its own, was hailed as the success story and the Commander in Chief, post hoc, hailed the new Tunisia as America’s closest non NATO ally. In Libya he supported NATO forces to overthrow Gaddafi. He broke from his generalized non intervention policy and with NATO forces maintained a no fly zone and sent planes to bomb Gaddafi’s troops. In the end Libya, by many accounts is more dysfunctional without its tyrant.

His response to Egypt’s uprisings where Moubarack had been America’s ally for decades, was to have the most profound impact. In this instance he would be heavily into supporting a democratic model no matter what. He made Mubarak’s position untenable by telling him to resign thereby paving the way for the far right Muslim Brotherhood, the only organized political party, to win power. The military backed Moubarak who had maintained relations with Israel and kept some sort of check on Hamas was replaced by the fundamentalist Mohammed Morsi. Besides upsetting Israel no end it send a clear message to the royal family of Saudi Arabia America’s other major ally in the area - if you cannot control your revolutionaries you too are dispensable. As the Egyptian situation evolved and the masses realized that they had replaced one authoritarian rule by a worse one they rose up again. This time the military intervened and replaced Morsi by Sisi which more or less returned back the initial status quo both within Egypt and the region. 

While there were unsuccessful protests in nearly all the other Muslim states only one requires analysis. Syria was another Arab Spring upheaval that Obama was indecisive and all over the show on. This disaster however has dragged on and on with Obama at sixes and sevens as to what to do. He had no desire to mix in. Against all advice he refused to arm any of the moderate  Syrian rebels fearful that the arms may fall into ISIS or Assad’s hands. He drew a line in the sand that he would bomb Assad’s forces if he used chemical weapons but ducked out of it when evidence was provided. Assad’s Syria has precipitated a world wide crisis with 4 million refugees. At home the massive problem that Syria has become has been laid on his shoulders. The argument is that had he intervened in the earlier stages by backing the Syrian rebels Assad would have been out and that his inaction had handed the Middle East’s future to the dictates of Russia.  

Iran’s Green Revolution.

The Muslim world tumult all started a year earlier in Iran. Iranian activists flooded into the streets  in 2009 when hundreds of thousands rose up against the gerrymandered reelection of Ahmadijinedad. What was referred to as “The Green Revolution” was brutally put down by the Iranian government. Obama did literally nothing after his speech had engendered such hope in the region. He saw no merit in “meddling in other countries elections”. Any dream of change of that theocratic totalitarian regime was dashed and American critics wailed that he had abandoned those that had rebelled against America’s biggest enemy in the region. One can imagine the feeling of hopelessness among the Iranian revolutionaries - not even a sustained condemnation of the jack booted Iranian forces or even an attempt at a Security Council resolution

Upshot of Obama’s Policies on Revolutionary Change Following Cairo

By this time Obama had sent three clear messages - one to his allies in the region that he couldn’t be relied on: that fighters for democracy, even in the most brutal regimes who were the USA’s sworn enemies, should not count on any assistance of any sort and most importantly, that rhetoric aside, the USA was not going to be The Big Player in the Middle East.

Obama, despite his vision or perhaps because of it, after nearly 70 years of America intermittently waging wars that went nowhere at vast loss of treasure and youth, was calling it quits.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINIAN PEACE TALKS

Israel is an emotional issue in the USA and one of the few issues that there is ever any bipartisanship on. Bibi Netanyahu, who had caused Bill Clinton endless grief, was not about to make life easier for Barak. He decided to run against Obama from the word go culminating with him campaigning with the Republicans in attempting to kibosh the Iranian nuclear deal. Obama for his part had been briefed by his Chief of Staff, Ehmanuel, an orthodox Jew, who had served with Clinton, not to let the bull headed Israeli Prime Minister, control him. So Obama in more ways than one let Bibi know that he was not getting favored nation treatment to the point of snubbing him as he did after the Cairo visit.

Obama however from day one had George Mitchell the former Democratic Senate Leader and hotshot negotiator ferrying backwards and forwards to reinstate peace talks that were becoming more and more elusive. Abbas like Arafat would never really seal a deal and Bibi, unlike every Israeli Prime Minister before him, didn’t really care, creating settlement after settlement. Obama was forever ambivalent and found the tension between him and the leader of the Jewish State painful. Confiding to his Chief advisor, David Axelrod, another professing Jew, that of all peoples he felt closest to were the Jews and to be labelled an anti semite was unbearable. He never wavered on Israel’s security and their right to defense paying for the successful rocket thwarting Iron Dome for example.

A two State solution in Israel is dead. Hamas is hanging out for a one State Palestine. Israel’s demographic is changing with a growth in population of ultra orthodox Jews who regard  the settlements as religious injunctions making it harder for Netanyahu’s successor to take up the cause again.  Tensions too have never been worse between the leaders of both Israeli and American administrations so Barak has let this one go. 

IRANIAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS AND ITS IMPACT ON ISLAM SECTARIAN CONFLICT

The jewel in Obama’s foreign policy ambitions was to curtail Iran’s path to a nuclear capability. Although America was one of six negotiating nations it took the lead and the subsequent settlement was identified with Obama. In his belief that this was the most crucial issue for world peace and American safety he ignored the entreaties of his Middle East allies, Israel, the Sunni Gulf States lead by the long standing ally the Saudis, Egypt and Jordan. The upshot is that the latter states have formed a loose coalition to take on the Shiite Iranian theocracy. Most significantly, other than Jordan, America appears to have lost all its influence on what they do as subsequent events have shown. 

The Saudis have taken the gloves off and are fighting full fledged proxy wars against Iran the most far reaching being in Yemen. The new Saudi King bin Salman has thrown off the traditional veil of Saudi passivity. Their execution of the Shiite cleric Nimr had to be designed to provoke the Iranians. When the “assassination” produced the expected protests in Teheran, Saudi Arabia withdrew diplomatic relations and to Iran’s chagrin the one Sunni State that they had reasonable relations with, Bahrain, followed suit. The Saudis doubled down and are more than satisfied with the outcome. Again, the USA only contribution to the escalation of this massive rift, with its potential to create chaos in the Middle East, was to impotently call for a reduction in tension. Obviously none of the players are taking the slightest notice of what Obama has to contribute. 

So America’s efforts to neutralize Iranian nuclear production have been met with suspicion, to put it at it’s kindest, by its allies. Obama has traded a bloc of allies and his influence in the hope that his deal will hold. In return he has the word of a Satanic regime, a sponsor of terrorism, who behaves erratically openly calling for American destruction on a daily basis while making soothing noises in releasing the American sailors promptly.

Another personal sequel is that Netanyahu is already lobbying his new allies against the possibility that Obama become the next United Nations Secretary General.

ISIS

To many this is the real threat to the Middle East and the world. United States again have  insisted on a coalition of forces in the war against this unspeakably evil manifestation of sectarian violence in the Middle East, bombing selectively not taking any risk to cause civilian casualties. The radically fundamentalist Sunni ISIS filled the void that the Bush firing of Saddam Hussein’s army had created. Together with Saddam’s well trained militia, plus radical Sunni sects emanating from Syrian terrorists, who were the spiritual successors of Al Qaeda, ISIS has violently opposed the Shiite Syrian leaders and their Iranian paymasters. Contemporaneously they are disenchanted with the Sunni Gulf States who they believe are apostates. They have achieved much success to date and have claimed a large chunk of Iraq and Syria territory to create a de facto Caliphate. They also have an international presence and have claimed responsibility for a number of high profile terrorist attacks thereby striking panic across the planet.

America thus far has supported bombing raids on ISIS but seem hampered by the fact that ISIS too is against Assad. Weirdly there is the feeling that eliminating ISIS is bolstering Assad. Putin’s Russia has no such ambivalence as they support Assad.  The Russian premier has unashamedly joined with Iran and Hezbollah to attack both the Syrian rebel forces and ISIS with the emphasis on the former. By so doing they are becoming the key major power in the region and should ISIS be defeated and Assad survive they will have emerged as the major power in that region strengthening both themselves and Iran. It hardly needs reminding that this also pits the two cold war antagonists explosively against each other.

AT THE END OF THE DAY.

It is hard to believe that less than a decade ago the mantra was that all the tension in the Middle East would vanish if only the Israeli Palestinian conflict would resolve. Israel would be in a very weakened position should Putin’s coalition win through with Assad still in power. Hezbollah, armed with Russian equipment will be even more formidable. Iran, which is their number one enemy has a new cynical international backer and that will embolden them further. The Saudi Sunni block have already seen the writing on the wall and have all but declared war on Iran. 

Obama for his part can just be hoping that Russia will burn its fingers in its newest colonial venture, that Assad will be overthrown by Syrian rebels sympathetic to the West or that a political solution will finally be brokered by all parties, that Iran will become more moderate and the spat between it and the Saudi faction will be satisfactorily resolved and that Netanyahu will finally come to his senses stop establishing settlements and make a determined push to raise the standard of living for Palestinians inside and outside of Israel. 

Finally, the next President has his or her work cutout to soothe the USA’s allies in the region and  to cobble a regional policy that hangs together. If the Republican contenders' rhetoric is an indicator fasten your seatbelt and prepare for WW 111.