Obama in the Middle East

Source: Getty
Q&A
Summary
The longer Washington puts forward half measures on the peace process, the more damage is done to its interests and reputation in the Arab world.
Related Media and Tools
 

On his upcoming trip to the Middle East, U.S. President Barack Obama will make his first visit as president to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan. In a Q&A, Marwan Muasher analyzes the issues that will shape Obama’s visit.

Muasher argues that Iran and Syria will likely dominate discussions despite the urgency of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the longer Washington waits and puts forward half measures on the peace process, the more damage is done to its interests and reputation in the Arab world.

How significant is Obama’s trip to the Middle East?

It’s unclear at this stage how important it will be, leaving many people questioning why Obama is making the trip now.

The administration says the trip is not designed to spark a major breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If that’s the case, then the visit is much more about discussing with Israel how to contain the Iranian nuclear program and handle the Syrian crisis.

How is this trip different than his first trip to the region as president in 2009?

A lot has changed since then.

Obama’s 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo raised expectations across the region. Then, a largely stable Arab world was hopeful that the United States would work to heal deep divisions and that Obama himself would throw the weight of his office behind finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now, Obama visits a region in turmoil that doesn’t expect much from the United States. The Arab Awakening broke out over two years ago, and while some countries are undergoing transitions toward democracy, the process has been anything but easy.

The Obama administration took an early position on the side of change in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. But it has not yet been clear about how it will support the ongoing process across the Middle East, particularly when democratic openings conflict with immediate U.S. interests as seen in Bahrain. And people are still waiting to see how Obama will deal with countries that have not undergone transitions, notably the Gulf states.

Will any progress be made on the peace process?

The peace process is low on Obama’s list of priorities, and there are no indications that Washington will make any concerted effort to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The administration’s stance is that Obama is visiting Jerusalem and the West Bank to listen, but that isn’t very convincing. There is very little—if anything—that the United States doesn’t understand about the situation after decades of diplomacy.

When Obama emerges on the other side of the wall in the West Bank, he will see the conditions Palestinians live with under occupation. This vivid image should leave a lasting impression with the president—and demonstrate the urgency of the situation.

The time for listening is over—now is the time for real movement. Obama has two options: either focus on other issues or set the stage for a bold initiative. Half measures will only make things worse.

But waiting for another time is a mistake. There is a window of only a few months until the hope of a two-state solution is lost for good.

The best option is for the trip to include behind-the-scenes diplomacy that will lay the groundwork for reaching a breakthrough. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that will happen.

How strong is Obama’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

It’s no secret that Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship over the years. In fact, Obama doesn’t have strong personal ties with any individual leader in the Middle East.

It’s important for him to develop these relationships in a region where personal diplomacy means a lot. Both Obama and Netanyahu will look to mend personal ties and give a positive impression during the visit.

Netanyahu is not in a strong position today. He is likely to form a new government after January’s elections only days before Obama arrives, so he will be looking to avoid heated debates on the conflict with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu will want to focus on Iran and to a lesser degree Syria—but spend as little time as possible on the peace process. Obama does not look ready to nudge the two parties on the peace process if they are not willing to take the initiative themselves.

This is a trip that will produce very little, if anything, beyond rhetoric on the peace process.

Do Obama and Netanyahu agree on the best way forward on Iran?

No. It is becoming increasingly clear that Israel cannot stop Iran’s nuclear program with a military strike. At best, this would only delay the program by a couple of years. Israel’s preferred strategy is therefore a U.S. strike on Iran.

But a U.S. attack is not that simple.

There has not been a serious public debate about the day after a U.S. strike. Will hitting Iran stop the program or ensure that the Iranians decide to weaponize? Will a strike benefit the region or strengthen the extremists at the expense of the moderate voices in the Arab world? Will it weaken Iran or resurrect it from the dead in the Arab world where it has lost a lot of popularity because of its support for the Syrian regime? These are questions that need to be seriously debated.

The strike will also drive up the price of oil. The capacity for Gulf states to export oil without relying on the Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz is extremely limited, so the risk of a global economic crisis is very real.

This means that Obama is likely to stay the diplomatic course regardless of how hard Israel pushes Washington to strike. And this is the right decision. Sanctions need to be continued and work needs to be done to try to find a diplomatic solution.

Are Israel and the United States doing enough on the Syrian crisis?

At the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the Israelis were not particularly interested in the Assad regime falling—the country was stable and kept their shared border largely quiet. There was a fear that a change could bring more radical elements into positions of influence in Damascus.

But the conflict’s escalation has led both Israel and the United States to look for ways to contain the rise of radical rebels inside Syria.

U.S. policy is to change the regime while maximizing the chances that a moderate government will take its place. This is not exactly Israel’s policy. Some people believe that it is in Israel’s interest for the present stalemate to continue indefinitely, leaving a weak Syria that is unable to threaten Israel’s security. If one accepts that there is an element of truth in this, then Obama and Netanyahu will not see the situation exactly the same way.

Regardless, something needs to be done to break the military stalemate and force a political transition that will lead to a new regime before the country is destroyed.

The argument against direct military intervention in Syria is understandable. But the idea that giving weapons directly to opposition forces is problematic because arms may fall into the hands of radical groups needs to be weighed against the real possibility that prolonging the conflict increases the chances of extremist groups assuming power.

How important is Obama’s stop in Jordan?

This is an opportunity for Obama to develop a personal relationship with a key Arab leader.

Jordan’s leaders may be looking for the Obama visit to serve as a reaffirmation of their policies. Jordan feels pretty comfortable right now. Protests have calmed down and many observers think the leadership has successfully weathered the storm of the Arab uprisings given that government loyalists came out on top in the country’s recent election for the lower house of parliament.

Both sides will emphasize the need for a sustained and gradual reform process from above. Regardless of what the administration privately feels, I think Obama’s public statements will be very supportive of the reform process in Jordan. The administration will not push for any accelerated process.

How can Obama improve America’s standing in the Middle East?

Obama will need more than a well-worded speech if the United States hopes to repair its image in the Arab world. People in the region want action, not talk.

Of course, it’s unclear how much the international community can help a process that is undergoing unavoidable ups and downs. After all, U.S. economic power is reduced without an unlimited source of funds to offer the region, its military power is questioned after the Iraq war and troop withdrawal, and its political power is on the wane given its unwillingness to take a proactive role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

If Obama really wants to improve America’s standing in the Middle East, he needs to make a real effort to break the deadlock in the peace process. Washington can’t tell most Arabs that it stands with them in their quest for freedom but tell Palestinians that their conflict with the Israelis is too complicated to fix right now. That message is inconsistent and will not resonate in the region.

End of document

About the Middle East Program

The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, sociopolitical, and strategic interests in the Arab world. Through detailed country studies and the exploration of key crosscutting themes, the Carnegie Middle East Program, in coordination with the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, provides analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region. The program has special expertise in political reform and Islamist participation in pluralistic politics.

 

Comments (5)

 
 
  • ياسر بدوي
    2 Recommends
     
    من الناحية العملية اوباما يتحدث بكلام جميل لكنه يفتقر للارادة لتنفيذ ما يريد بسسب اسرائيل و هذه اصبحت قناعات لدى الرأي العام و هذه النقطة اعطت النظام مدا و ثقة في الاستمرار في القتل .
    اعتقد ان السياسة الامريكية في منحى خطير و عليها تقديم خياراتها بوضوح فمسألة تحسين الصورة هي عارض ربما يكون اساسيا في الحالات الطبيعية لكن في الحالة السورية المليئة بالدماء و البؤس ليست فعالة فأمام امريكا تقديم حلا حاسما و سريعا و الا فهي تتخلى عن مسؤولياتها العالمية و عندها ستكون القيم الامريكية محل سخرية و ما الحديث عن قوى التطرف الا ذريعة تسقط بجرة قلم فالغالبية العظمة في سورية مع الاعتدال و المدنية ؟
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Eberhard Rhein, Brussels
    1 Recommend
     
    I am in full agreement with the thrust of the blog. No military action against Iran, support of the secular opposition in Syria and a breakthrough in the peace process though that might be even more difficult with the new Israeli government.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Horowitz Monitor 1985
    1 Recommend
     
    Because of events in Syria the very future of the Hashemite Kingdom will remain fragile. Within this context the window for a two state solution will remain firmly shut. Israel will never agree to west bank state with the Brotherhood on the verge of victory in southern Syria. The entire Levant has become a giant political uncertainty. The future of Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon could become spillovers from the war in Syria. Worse even than that, a regional war involving Turkey and Iran is also a possibility. This is no time for an Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Jordan River valley. President Obama's time would be better spent working with the Russia to establish a way forward regionally than chasing pipe dreams about unviable west bank states.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Muhyieddeen TOUQ
    1 Recommend
     
    Marwan has said it all. Obama is not going to offer anything new ia all of the isuues raised in this interview. What is not said in this interview most importantly though, is that the US does not want real democracy in the MENA region and at the same time wants pseudo democracy to stop at the edge of the oil countries as Noam Chomsky said.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • mortimerzilch
    1 Recommend
     
    did obama go to the dome of the rock? yes, or no? I don't see it anywhere...
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/14/obama-in-middle-east/fqcy

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。