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 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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital AmbitionsCommentary
Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.
Aruzhan Meirkhanova
- The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for RussiaCommentary
Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.
Ruslan Suleymanov
- Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria ConundrumCommentary
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
