For a change, the news from Washington was positive and well received around the world, including the Middle East. Upon his victory on November 4, Barack Obama received messages of congratulations from a number of leaders in the region, among them Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama’s election raised hopes in the Middle East that under his administration, America would resume her role of peacemaker in the region.
Obama’s election was a reminder that democracy, despite its many imperfections, works. It was, unquestionably, the best example America could offer and should encourage the spread of democracy around the world far more so than the menace of any military threat.
Realistically, however, what does Barack Obama’s election mean for the Middle East? Are too much hope and too high expectations being placed on the new president? The answer to both questions is an unequivocal “yes”.
While Obama will take the US in a very different direction than his predecessor, all his good intentions to try and resolve the Middle East’s crises will be hampered by the president’s biggest hurdle: time. There is only so much any president can handle in the space of 24 hours and Obama will have every hour of his days filled, working to untangle the mess caused after eight years of disastrous policies adopted by the neoconservatives who have managed to take a vibrant economy and drive it into the ground, start two wars in the Middle East and alienate the US from much of the world.
Obama inherits a long list of urgent domestic dossiers from the Bush administration: an economy in shambles; the housing market in disarray; unemployment hitting a 14-year high at 6.5%; the American car industry on the brink of bankruptcy with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors laying off workers by the thousands and plants in the Detroit area risking closure.
In foreign affairs, the Obama administration will have to deal with the war in Iraq, which appears to be winding down, but where the US is now engaged in a political battle with the Iraqi government over the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).
If the violence is abating in Iraq, it is gaining momentum in Afghanistan. Obama will have to decide what to do there and see if he can convince NATO and other allies to commit more troops in a concentrated effort to finally defeat the Taliban. Additionally, Obama will have to make a landmark decision about whether US forces should pursue Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters into neighboring Pakistan, seeing that as long as Pakistan continues to provide shelter — either willingly or unwillingly — to insurgents fighting the international force in Afghanistan, the problem is unlikely to end.
One of the topics likely to require urgent attention by the president will be Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. Just days after his nomination President-elect Obama reiterated that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
In view of the priorities that will be granted to other more pressing issues, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to take a backseat — once again — until the president can find time to devote to getting the peace process moving. The good news here is that the Washington rumor mill reports that Obama will appoint a high profile envoy to represent him in the Middle East and push ahead for a comprehensive peace deal.
Obama will have to mend soured relations with Syria, which continues to hold the keys to any lasting peace treaty in the region. As long as Israel occupies the Golan Heights, Syria will remain opposed to the peace process, whereas a peace treaty with Damascus will pave the way for a comprehensive peace in the region. There is one important caveat, however: Lebanon.
Any peace treaty between Israel and Syria that does not include Lebanon will not be worth the paper it is written on. Why? Because a continued state of belligerency between Israel and Lebanon (read: Hizbullah), leaves a dangerous escape clause in the Syrian-Israeli peace process. Lebanon on its own would never sit down with Israel to discuss peace, but Lebanon as part of a joint delegation with Syria would place those parties opposed to a peace treaty with Israel in front of a fait accompli.
Finalizing the peace between Syria and Lebanon on one side and Israel on the other would resolve the issue of the Shebaa Farms and — in principle — remove Hizbullah’s reasons to maintain an armed militia.
Obama would then need to mend fences with much of the Arab and Muslim world with whom relations have been strained by the Bush neoconservative policy.
Of course, all this will take a backseat to the most urgent problem facing the US today, the financial crisis. Yet, Obama’s victory on November 4 over his rival, Republican contender John McCain, is a clear indication of the American people’s want for the change which Obama has promised.
As pollster John Zogby wrote in an editorial just days before the election, “change is coming.” And on November 4, change came.
Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington.
