Obama returns focus to the Middle East
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - As President Barack Obama arrives home from his week-long tour of
East Asia, he confronts a growing list of ever-more urgent problems in the
Greater Middle East that he inherited from George W Bush's "global war on
terror".
From Palestine to Pakistan, Obama, who also faces a major fight in getting his
top legislative priority - health care reform - through the US Congress, must
make a series of critical decisions within a relatively short time.
Some of those decisions could well determine Obama's foreign policy legacy,
specifically whether he can pull the US out of the hole Bush dug for it in the
region or whether, inspiring rhetoric
notwithstanding, he keeps digging.
While deciding on his strategy in Afghanistan - and how many US troops will be
needed to implement it - is at the top of the list, the apparent impasse on
Iran's nuclear program has strengthened forces here that favor imposing
"crippling sanctions", if not military action, against the Islamic republic,
sooner rather than later.
At the same time, the sharp deterioration over the past several weeks in
prospects for renewed peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians
has suddenly put into serious question the continued viability not only of the
Palestine Authority, but also of the two-state solution on which Washington and
other members of the Quartet have long based their policies. The Quartet
comprises the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.
It was just three weeks ago that Obama's national security adviser, General
James Jones, identified the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the "epicenter" of
US challenges in the Greater Middle East and the one crisis the administration
would prioritize if it could "solve any one problem" in the region.
Yet, with Israel's latest defiance of US demands that it halt settlement
expansion in the West Bank and, specifically, in East Jerusalem, a solution now
appears more remote than at any time since Bush ended Bill Clinton's
peacemaking efforts in 2001.
Obama's Asia tour, which took him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea,
garnered mixed reviews here. Right-wing critics accused him of excessive
deference, especially toward his Chinese hosts and the Japanese emperor (to
whom he was accused of bowing too deeply). His defenders insisted that his
modesty marked a welcome contrast to Bush's "cowboy" swagger, especially in
countries that have become Washington's biggest creditors by far.
Many of Obama's top foreign policy advisers firmly believe that US relations
with Asia - where China is fast emerging as a true global power, and recent
elections in Japan, Washington's closest regional ally, have launched a major
political transition with serious foreign policy implications - require far
more attention than they received under Bush, a point underlined by Obama's
reference to himself as Washington's "first Pacific president".
That the administration has been forced to focus most of its attention on the
Greater Middle East is a source of both regret and resentment to many of these
same aides who blame the Bush administration's incompetence, Manichean
worldview and contempt for diplomacy for the crises they face in the region.
Of those, Afghanistan, the subject of a major review that is well into its
third month, has drawn the most attention and may turn out to be the most
momentous.
Obama's top military commander, apparently backed by the Armed Forces chief of
staff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has asked for as many as 40,000 new
US troops to add to the 68,000 already deployed there in order to repel Taliban
advances and gain time for Washington and its North Atlantic Treaty
Organization allies to build up the Afghan Army and police so they can hold
their own.
Vice President Joseph Biden and several of Obama’s top political advisers
reportedly oppose them. Worried about growing opposition to the war among
Democrats and polls showing that only about one-third of the public favor
adding troops, they have argued for a much more modest escalation, if any at
all.
They have been strengthened in recent weeks by published accounts of gross
corruption on the part of the government of President Hamid Karzai, his brother
and their cronies, and by the leak of a cable from Washington's ambassador in
Kabul. Retired General Karl Eikenberry expressed great skepticism in that
communication over whether adding troops would make any difference in the
absence of wholesale - and, in his view, highly unlikely - changes in the
government's performance.
Reports about the estimated costs of additional deployments - estimated at US$1
million per soldier per year - have also bolstered Biden's position.
Obama, who ruled out withdrawing US troops last month, is now reportedly
weighing several options - ranging from adding 10,000 troops to granting the
Pentagon's full request.
He is also reportedly insisting that additional US assistance be tied to
"measurable" improvements in the government's performance, a message conveyed
personally by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who attended Karzai's
inauguration for a second five-year term in Kabul last Thursday.
In an interview on Wednesday with CNN, Obama, who has been accused by
right-wing critics, notably former vice president Dick Cheney, of "dithering"
over his decision, said he was "very close" to making one and expected to
announce it "in the next several weeks".
On Iran, Obama pledged last spring that he would pursue his "engagement" policy
with Tehran through the end of the year before assessing whether it should be
continued.
With less than 45 days before the new year, however, Iran has failed to confirm
an agreement in principle reached last month in Geneva between it and the
so-called “Iran Six” (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council - the US, France, China, Britain and Russia - and Germany) that would
lower tensions over its nuclear program.
The plan called for Tehran to export most of its stockpile of low-enriched
uranium to Russia and France for reprocessing into fuel rods to be used for a
research reactor in Tehran. Recent statements by senior Iranian officials that
appeared to reject the plan have contributed to growing pessimism in the US
that the deal will be accepted.
As a result, the so-called "Israel Lobby" and its allies in Congress have
rallied behind a series of bills that would impose unilateral sanctions against
Iran and third-country companies that do business with it.
With time running out, Obama himself appears to be putting greater emphasis on
sticks rather than carrots, warning on Thursday in Seoul that, "over the next
several weeks, the [Iran Six] will be developing a package of potential steps
that we could take that would indicate our seriousness to Iran".
While Obama said he was "pleased" with what he called "the extraordinary
international unity that we have seen" over the issue, Russia and China have
repeatedly indicated their reluctance to impose sanctions. If maintained, their
stance will impose very difficult choices on Washington very soon.
On top of all this, events in Israel and the Occupied Territories - most
recently, Israel's approval last week of the construction of 900 housing units
in the Palestinian neighborhood of Gilo in East Jerusalem - has dealt a perhaps
fatal blow to the Oslo framework that has guided the Israeli-Palestinian "peace
process" since 1993.
Coming after threats by senior Palestinian officials to resign in protest over
Washington's refusal to back up its earlier demands for a halt to all Jewish
settlement expansion, Obama himself warned Wednesday that the latest action by
the Netanyahu government "embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up
being very dangerous".
Even before the Gilo announcement, experts here were warning that a third
intifada could break out at any time, with potentially disastrous consequences
not only for Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects, but also for Obama's efforts
to restore Washington's image throughout the region.
Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
