Article
Marina Ottaway, Omar Hossino
{
"authors": [
"Marina Ottaway"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran",
"Israel",
"Türkiye",
"Saudi Arabia",
"Egypt",
"Gulf",
"Levant",
"Maghreb"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Sharing the Burden in the Middle East
President-elect Obama emphasizes the need for greater diplomacy and a willingness to engage with hostile regimes. This commitment to “return to diplomacy” will not be enough to end the deadlock in the Middle East. Obama should break from traditional U.S. posture and support peace initiatives originating with Arab countries.
Published on Dec 18, 2008
During the campaign, President-elect Obama emphasized the need for greater diplomacy and a willingness to engage with hostile regimes. This commitment to “return to diplomacy” will not be enough to break the deadlock in the Middle East. Obama should break from traditional U.S. posture and support peace initiatives originating with Arab countries, urges a new paper by the director of the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Marina Ottaway explains that the United States lacks the legitimacy and capacity to monopolize leadership in the peace process. The new administration should signal its support for three key Arab undertakings: Syrian–Israeli negotiations under Turkish leadership, Hamas–Fatah talks brokered by Egypt, and the Arab–Israeli initiative most recently proposed by Saudi Arabia.
Key Conclusions:
- Supporting Arab-sponsored talks transfers responsibility to regional players, who have not yet made the sustained efforts necessary to turn a proposed plan into a workable agreement.
- By engaging in talks with Iran and Hamas, the United States would send a clear signal to the region—it is impossible to make peace without dealing with your enemies. If Arab countries want peace with Israel, they need to negotiate directly with Israel.
- By sharing the burden with regional actors, the United States can avoid repeated diplomatic defeats.
- The Obama administration should abandon efforts to build a Cold War-style coalition against Iran. Despite enthusiasm about the new president, Gulf countries remain extremely vulnerable to attacks by Iran and have no interest in provoking one. The United States should support—but not initiate—a regional dialogue with Iran and its neighbors on common interests.
Ottaway concludes:
“The new administration needs to rethink the U.S. role in the politics of the Middle East, abandon the assumption that it must be at the center of every initiative, build on what the regional countries are trying to do, and, in the process, encourage them to take more responsibility. At a time when American solutions appear deadlocked and the new president will have to concentrate his attention on the economy, sharing the burden provides a way forward.”
About the Author
Marina Ottaway
Former Senior Associate, Middle East Program
Before joining the Endowment, Ottaway carried out research in Africa and in the Middle East for many years and taught at the University of Addis Ababa, the University of Zambia, the American University in Cairo, and the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa.
- Reactions to the Syrian National Initiative
- Slow Return to Normal Politics in EgyptArticle
Marina Ottaway
Recent Work
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyMiddle EastIranIsraelTürkiyeSaudi ArabiaEgyptGulfLevantMaghreb
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic ChoicesArticle
This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.
Vrinda Sahai
