Former US President Barack Obama addresses the Muslim world from Cairo University in 2009. AFP
Former US President Barack Obama addresses the Muslim world from Cairo University in 2009. AFP

2009 - The Obama Doctrine: Good intentions gone bad

Short Url
Updated 22 April 2025
Follow

2009 - The Obama Doctrine: Good intentions gone bad

2009 - The Obama Doctrine: Good intentions gone bad
  • Despite key diplomatic wins, Barack Obama’s cautious approach drew criticism for major failures in the Middle East and beyond 

RIYADH: In 2009, the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency, a distinctive approach to US foreign policy began to emerge, now often referred to as the “Obama Doctrine.” 

It was characterized by a pragmatic, multilateral and diplomacy-first strategy that aimed to restore Washington’s standing in the world after years of unilateral, aggressive interventions, spearheaded by his predecessor George W. Bush. 

At its core, the doctrine sought to redefine US leadership in a multipolar world. It was not apparent in any single document or speech, it was fashioned through a series of policy decisions, speeches and actions after Obama took office. 

One of the earliest signs of the doctrine can be found in the president’s inaugural address in January 2009, when he pledged to “seek a new way forward” with the Muslim world “based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” and to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” 

This rhetoric of engagement marked a departure from the more confrontational policies of the previous administration, particularly in the Middle East. 

Obama’s speech in Egypt in June 2009 further solidified this approach. Addressing an audience at Cairo University, he underscored his administration’s commitment to soft power and diplomacy as tools to address global issues, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts. 

Departing from the discourse on democratization that had become too closely associated with the “war on terror” and the neoconservative ideology that had formed the theoretical framework for the 2003 military intervention in Iraq, Obama instead focused on rebuilding relations with Egypt, as well as “reaching out” to Syria and Iran. 

In an article published by Foreign Affairs magazine in 2007, Obama wrote of the need to “reinvigorate American diplomacy.”  

How we wrote it




Arab News’ front page covered Obama’s Cairo University speech, where he pledged to mend ties with the Arab world.

He warned that the US policy of “issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran’s nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.” 

His administration’s approach, rooted in engagement with long-standing adversaries, translated into the landmark 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, and was also evident in dealings with Cuba. After Obama’s inauguration, diplomatic efforts began in an attempt to thaw relations with Havana, culminating in the reestablishment of diplomatic ties in 2015. 

While he was not averse to using military power, his administration sought to limit large-scale interventions, focusing instead on targeted operations and partnerships. The drawdown of US forces in Iraq, announced in February 2009, signaled this shift toward the winding down of protracted wars. 

His foreign policy, in response to criticisms of America’s previous “go-it-alone” strategy, focused on strengthening ties with NATO and Russia, building alliances with Asia, reengaging with the UN, and participating in international forums such as the G20 to tackle issues ranging from economic recovery after the 2008 financial crisis, to climate change. For instance, under Obama the US took a leading role in the 2016 Paris Agreement. 

Despite these successes, however, his doctrine would soon prove less effective in the Middle East, where his policies, or absence thereof, drew criticism for undermining Washington’s credibility, emboldening adversaries and shaking the confidence of allies. 

His military intervention in Libya, which was authorized by the UN Security Council with the aim of protecting protesters from the crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi on unrest in 2011, left the country in chaos and under threat from violent extremists. 

In a 2016 Fox News interview, Obama admitted that the operation in Libya was the “biggest mistake” of his presidency, for its failure to plan for the aftermath of ًQaddafi’s ouster. His stance would later be reflected by his inconsistent approach to the Middle East, in particular when Syria descended in civil war in 2012.

 

Key Dates

  • 1

    Barack Obama takes office as US president; during inaugural address vows “a new way forward” with the Muslim world “based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

    Timeline Image Jan. 20, 2009

  • 2

    Obama addresses issue of US-Middle East relations during a speech at Cairo University.

    Timeline Image June 4, 2009

  • 3

    Obama receives 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

    Timeline Image Oct. 9, 2009

  • 4

    UN Security Council passes Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the Obama administration, which authorizes airstrikes to protect civilians in Libya.

    Timeline Image March 17, 2011

  • 5

    Obama declares his intention not to launch airstrikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, despite evidence it had used chemical weapons.

    Timeline Image Sept. 10, 2013

  • 6

    UN Security Council passes resolution ordering destruction of Syrian regime’s chemical weapons

  • 7

    Iran nuclear deal signed, delaying Tehran’s continued development of nuclear weapons in return for reduced sanctions.

    Timeline Image Jan. 17, 2016

  • 8

    Obama visits Cuba, the first such visit by an incumbent US president since 1928.

 

Obama’s reluctance to intervene in Syria led to accusations of complicity in the violence of the regime of President Bashar Assad, which killed at least 400,000 people, devastated civilian neighborhoods, and triggered one of the worst immigration crises in Europe since the Second World War. 

His hesitant approach was most evident when, in August 2012 he pledged military intervention if Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, describing this as a “red line.” A year later, on Aug. 21, 2013, Obama’s “red line” was crossed when images of victims emerged as evidence that Assad had used sarin and chlorine gas against towns near Damascus. 

In a September 2013 speech, Obama, haunted by a decade of failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, backed down from launching air strikes against the Assad regime in favor of diplomacy, saying: “I’ve spent four-and-a-half years working to end wars, not to start them.” 

Instead, he settled for a deal with Russia, later enshrined in UN Resolution 2118, which required Syria to dismantle its stockpiles of chemical weapons and provided for some covert military aid for the moderate opposition, to help diffuse the power of Islamist fighters. 

Soon, however, that proved not to be enough. Washington’s absence from Syria solidified Assad’s grip on cities, empowered Iran and Russia in the region, and created a vacuum that allowed Daesh to emerge. 

In August 2014, a US president who had once rejected the notion of a “global war on terror” found himself entangled in one. He authorized air strikes on Daesh targets in Iraq and, later, Syria, as he organized an international coalition to combat the terror group. 

In less than two years, he shifted from ordering airstrikes to deploying more than 475 additional military advisors in Iraq, and more than 4,000 ground troops, including special operations forces, in both Iraq and Syria. 




Michelle and Barack Obama with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman during the US president’s 2015 visit to the Kingdom. AFP

The rise of Daesh complicated Obama’s plans for winding down the US military presence in Iraq. At the same time, it forced him to authorize limited airstrikes in Libya. 

The influx of refugees and spill over of repercussions from the civil war in Syria destabilized the country’s neighbors, including US security partners such as Jordan and Turkey, and undermined trust in Obama’s administration, the cautious approach of which was seen as a missed opportunity to shape the outcome of the war in Syria. 

Some viewed the Obama doctrine as appeasing Iran, with the lifting of multilayered sanctions allowing the Islamic Republic to freely trade and receive foreign investment, leading to the regime in Tehran strengthening its proxy networks across the region and its corridor, via Iraq and Syria, to Lebanon. 

In addition, his reliance on drone strikes as a counterterrorism tool, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, which was portrayed as a more favorable alternative to large-scale military interventions, attracted significant criticism for the ethical and legal implications, as well as the effects on civilian populations.  

Overall, the legacy of the doctrine continues to be debated. Some hail it as a necessary recalibration of US foreign policy after the war in Iraq, while others consider it a retreat from leadership, or an overly cautious approach to global challenges. 

At a time when the Middle East was undergoing radical transformations, Washington appeared to favor hesitation over initiative, raising questions about the effectiveness of this strategy in achieving regional stability. 

  • Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami is head of the International Institute for Iranian Studies (Rasanah). 


More than 50 Colombian soldiers held by residents in restive region: army

More than 50 Colombian soldiers held by residents in restive region: army
Updated 7 min 28 sec ago
Follow

More than 50 Colombian soldiers held by residents in restive region: army

More than 50 Colombian soldiers held by residents in restive region: army
  • In conflict addled regions of Colombia, some illegal groups at times order civilians to carry out actions to impede the advance of security forces
  • Those civilians are usually released hours later after the intervention of human rights organizations

BOGOTA: More than 50 Colombian soldiers were being held captive Sunday by residents of a guerrilla-controlled region in the southwest of the country, the army said.
A first platoon of soldiers was carrying out an operation in El Tambo, a municipality part of an area known as the Micay Canyon — a cocaine-producing enclave — when civilians detained them on Saturday.
On Sunday another group of soldiers was surrounded by at least 200 residents as they headed toward El Plateado, another town in the region.
“As a result of both events, a total of four non-commissioned officers and 53 professional soldiers remain deprived of their liberty,” the army said.
In conflict-ridden regions of Colombia, some illegal groups at times order civilians to carry out actions to impede the advance of security forces. They are usually released hours later after the intervention of human rights organizations.
General Federico Alberto Mejia said in a video that it was a “kidnapping” by guerrillas who had “infiltrated” the community.
The army has maintained that the farmers receive orders from the so-called Central General Staff (EMC), the main FARC dissident group that did not sign the 2016 peace agreement with the then government.
President Gustavo Petro on Sunday urged farmers to “stop believing in armed groups who obey foreigners,” referring to the guerrillas’ alleged ties to Mexican cartels.
“We want to spread peace, but freeing the soldiers, who are their own children, is imperative,” the leftist president wrote on social media platform X.
Petro has been trying for months to ensure that the Armed Forces gain access to the entire Micay Canyon.
In March, 28 police officers and a soldier were held captive by local residents in the same area. All were released two days later.
Colombia is experiencing its worst security crisis in the last decade. Petro attempted to negotiate peace with the EMC, but its main leader, known as “Ivan Mordisco,” abandoned the talks.


‘Highly undesirable’: Dutch host NATO during political crisis

‘Highly undesirable’: Dutch host NATO during political crisis
Updated 24 min 28 sec ago
Follow

‘Highly undesirable’: Dutch host NATO during political crisis

‘Highly undesirable’: Dutch host NATO during political crisis

THE HAGUE: For a small country like the Netherlands, organizing a NATO summit is a big endeavour at the best of times. The government collapsing three weeks beforehand has not exactly made life easier.
With whole districts and key roads blocked for weeks, and schools and businesses closed, the usually serene seaside city of The Hague has certainly felt the force of the impending summit.
To much grumbling, even some cycle lanes have been shut down, usually unthinkable in the land of bikes.
Dozens of trees have also been uprooted to make way for the temporary buildings housing the thousands of delegates and journalists attending the summit.
For the Netherlands, welcoming 32 world leaders including US President Donald Trump is quite simply the biggest event it has ever hosted in terms of security.
The country is deploying some 27,000 police officers, around half its total force.
And all of this while Dutch politics is still reeling from far-right leader Geert Wilders’s withdrawal from the government in a row over immigration.
The sudden departure of Wilders and his far-right Freedom Party brought down a shaky coalition, with fresh elections now slated for October 29.
“It is highly undesirable to host such an important summit when the government has fallen and new elections are expected,” Claes de Vreese, political communications professor at the University of Amsterdam, told AFP.
It borders on embarrassing, stormed outgoing foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp, describing the withdrawal of Wilders three weeks before the summit as “scandalous.”
Fortunately, noted De Vreese, the Dutch parliament gave its green light to the defense spending increases at the center of the summit.
“This gives weight and legitimacy to the participation” of outgoing Prime Minister Dick Schoof at the summit, said the expert.
But as the government is a lame-duck administration, the next government will have to find the cash.


Speaking of cash, the estimated cost of the NATO summit is 183.4 million euros ($211 million), or just over one million euros per minute, according to Dutch daily AD.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has chopped back the leaders’ meeting to just two-and-a-half hours on Wednesday morning, reportedly to appease Trump, not known to love lengthy summits.
At least Rutte himself will feel at home.
The NATO boss is a born-and-bred “Hagenaar” (citizen of the Hague), still has a house in the city and is often seen at weekends on his bike or shopping at his local supermarket despite his move to Brussels.
And despite the government collapse complicating matters, it is really NATO taking on the bulk of the organization.
“We’re not hosting the summit, that’s the secretary general,” said Schoof.
“But the host country does play an important role. The whole world will be looking at the Netherlands,” Schoof told reporters.
Much of the attention will naturally be on Trump — although there is a question mark over his appearance given the US strikes on Iran.
It falls to Noordwijk, a peaceful coastal resort between Schiphol Airport and The Hague, to host the US president, who will stay in a sumptuous hotel overlooking the North Sea — if he turns up.
His route in has been completely blocked off since Sunday — like several others in the city.
Some frustrated citizens of The Hague have asked why the summit couldn’t be held in Veluwe, a national park with no one around — or even at the airport.
At an anti-NATO protest the weekend before the summit, Alfons Vryland, a 54-year-old teacher, noted the irony of holding a military alliance meeting in the self-styled City of Peace and Justice.
“I’m embarrassed that they’re here talking about war instead of peace in my country, in this city,” Vryland told AFP.
Jan van Zanen, the city’s amiable mayor, sought to reassure everyone, from the crisis-hit PM to the average Hagenaar.
“I know people think that I’m a magician as mayor of The Hague, but I couldn’t prevent the government collapsing,” he told AFP.
“The impact (of the government falling) is there, but where we can, we’ve limited it to the utmost,” he said.
“Yes, the Netherlands is ready.”


Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to skip NATO summit, source says

Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to skip NATO summit, source says
Updated 36 min 10 sec ago
Follow

Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to skip NATO summit, source says

Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to skip NATO summit, source says

TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is planning to cancel his attendance at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in the Hague, a source with direct knowledge said on Monday.
Broadcaster Fuji Television said Ishiba was canceling the trip because a planned meeting between NATO and a group of four Indo-Pacific nations (IP-4) would likely not take place, and because a meeting with US President Donald Trump was also unlikely.
South Korea and Australia, which along with the US and Japan make up the IP-4, have also said their leaders would not attend the NATO summit meeting.
Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya will represent Japan, the source said, declining to be identified because the plan is not public.


Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir to star alongside India’s Diljit Dosanjh in ‘Sardaar Ji 3’

Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir to star alongside India’s Diljit Dosanjh in ‘Sardaar Ji 3’
Updated 14 min 38 sec ago
Follow

Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir to star alongside India’s Diljit Dosanjh in ‘Sardaar Ji 3’

Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir to star alongside India’s Diljit Dosanjh in ‘Sardaar Ji 3’
  • Dosanjh announces Sardaar Ji 3 will release on June 27 in theaters around the world except India 
  • Frequent political tensions between India and Pakistan prevent artists from working with each other

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir recently shared the trailer of her upcoming Indian Punjabi horror-comedy movie “Sardaar Ji 3” in which she stars alongside famed Indian singer Diljit Dosanjh, announcing that the film will release in cinemas around the world except India on June 27.

Frequent political tensions between bitter rivals India and Pakistan have restricted artists from both countries from working with each other over the years. Indian producers imposed an unofficial ban on Pakistani artists in 2016 after ties deteriorated. Pakistan also banned the screening of Indian movies after relations with New Delhi reached a new low in 2019 over the disputed Kashmir region.

Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir (R) and Indian singer Diljit Dosanjh in the trailer of their upcoming punjabi film ‘Sardaar Ji 3’, released on June 23, 2025. (Screengrab/ @whitehillmusic/ Youtube) 

Tensions between India and Pakistan surged in May after they engaged in a days-long military conflict before the United States brokered a ceasefire between them. Several Indian media outlets reported this month that Aamir has been replaced as the female lead from Sardaar Ji 3 following the latest hostilities between the neighbors.

“SARDAAR JI 3 releasing 27th June OVERSEAS only!” Aamir wrote on social media platform Instagram on Sunday, sharing the trailer of the film. 

Dosanjh confirmed on his Instagram as well that the movie will not release in India. 

“Sardaar Ji 3 releasing 27th June OVERSEAS only,” the Indian actor wrote.

The movie has been directed by Aamr Hundal and other than Dosanjh and Aamir, stars Gulshan Grover, Neeru Bajwa, Jasmin Bajwa and Manav Ji in prominent roles. 

Pakistani superstar Hania Aamir in the trailer of her upcoming punjabi film ‘Sardaar Ji 3’, released on June 23, 2025. (Screengrab/ @whitehillmusic/ Youtube) 

As per the film’s trailer, Aamir and Neeru Bajwa both play romantic leads opposite Dosanjh. All three work together as ghost hunters tasked with removing a spirit from a mansion in the UK. 

Pakistani actor Fawad Khan and Indian actress Vaani Kapoor’s Bollywood film “Abir Gulaal” was scheduled to release in India on May 9. However, India’s broadcasting ministry said in April it would not allow the film to be released in the country following the April 22 killing of 26 people at a tourist resort in Indian-administered Kashmir.

India accused Pakistan of being involved in the attack, which Islamabad denied. After weeks of tensions, both countries engaged in armed conflict before the ceasefire on May 10. 


Emaciated after 5 years in prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski vows to fight on

Emaciated after 5 years in prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski vows to fight on
Updated 52 min 22 sec ago
Follow

Emaciated after 5 years in prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski vows to fight on

Emaciated after 5 years in prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski vows to fight on
  • Siarhei Tsikhanouski was sentenced to 19 years and six months on charges widely seen as politically motivated

VILNIUS: Siarhei Tsikhanouski is almost unrecognizable. Belarus’ key opposition figure, imprisoned in 2020 and unexpectedly released on Saturday, once weighed 135 kilograms (298 pounds) at 1.92 meters (nearly 6’4”) tall, but now is at just 79 kilos (174 pounds).
On Saturday, Tsikhnaouski was freed alongside 13 other prisoners and brought to Vilnius, the capital of neighboring Lithuania, where he was reunited with his wife, exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, and their children. Speaking to The Associated Press the day after, Tsikhanouski tries to smile and joke, but struggles to hold back heavy sighs recalling what he endured behind bars.
“This is definitely torture,” Tsikhanouski told The Associated Press in the first sit-down interview since his release. Prison officials “kept telling me: ‘You will be here not just for the 20 years we’ve already given you.’ We will convict you again,’” he said. “They told me that ‘You would never get out.’ And they kept repeating: ‘You will die here.’”
One of Belarus’s most prominent opposition figures, Tsikhanouski said he “almost forgot how to speak” during his years in solitary confinement. He was held in complete isolation, denied medical care, and given barely enough food.
“If you had seen me when they threw only two spoons of porridge onto my plate, two small spoons …” he said, adding that he couldn’t buy anything anything in the prison kiosk. “They would sometimes give me a little tube of toothpaste, a little piece of soap as charity. Sometimes they would, sometimes they wouldn’t.”
A prominent voice of dissent
Now 46, Tsikhanouski, a popular blogger and activist, was freed just hours after Belarusian authorities announced that authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko met with US President Donald Trump’s envoy for Ukraine in the Belarusian capital, Minsk. Keith Kellogg became the highest-ranking US official in years to visit Belarus, Moscow’s close and dependent ally.
Tsikhanouski, known for his anti-Lukashenko slogan “stop the cockroach,” was arrested after announcing plans to challenge the strongman in the 2020 election and shortly before the campaign began. He was sentenced to 19 years and six months on charges widely seen as politically motivated. His wife ran in his stead, rallying crowds across the country. Official results handed Lukashenko his sixth term in office but were denounced by the opposition and the West as a sham.
Lukashenko has since tightened his grip, securing a seventh term in disputed January 2025 elections. Since mid-2024, his government has pardoned nearly 300 prisoners — including US citizens — in what analysts see as an attempt to mend ties with the West.
Tsikhanouski credited US President Donald Trump with aiding his release.
“I thank Donald Trump endlessly,” Tsikhanouski said. “They (the Belarusian authorities) want Trump to at least, a little bit, somewhere, to meet them halfway. They are ready to release them all. All of them!”
Many are still behind bars
Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets in the aftermath of the August 2020 vote. Thousands were detained, many beaten by police. Prominent opposition figures either fled the country or were imprisoned.
At least 1,177 political prisoners remain in custody, according to Viasna, the oldest and most prominent human rights group in Belarus. Among them is Viasna’s founder, human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski.
Also behind bars are Viktor Babaryka, a former banker who was widely seen in 2020 as Lukashenko’s main electoral rival, and Maria Kolesnikova, a close ally of Tsikhanouskaya and charismatic leader of that year’s mass protests.
A surprise release and an emotional reunion
Tsikhanouski called his release “a dream that’s still hard to believe.” On Saturday, he said, guards removed him from a KGB pretrial detention center, put a black bag over his head, and handcuffed him before transporting him in a minibus. He and other prisoners had no idea where they were going.
“To be honest, I still can’t believe it. I was afraid I’d wake up and everything would still be the same. I don’t believe it, I still don’t believe it,” he said, pausing frequently and wiping away tears.
Tsikhanouski’s children — his daughter, aged 9, and 15-year-old son — didn’t recognize him when they were reunited.
“We came in and my wife said to my daughter, ‘Your dad has arrived,’” he said, crying. “At first she couldn’t understand, and then she rushed in — she was crying, I was crying ... for a very long time. My son too! These are emotions that cannot be described.”
Tsikhanouski, who says his health has deteriorated behind bars, plans to undergo a medical examination in Lithuania. He says cold and hunger were “the main causes of illness” that affected nearly all political prisoners in Belarus, who were subjected to “especially harsh conditions.”
“There were skin diseases, and everyone had kidney problems from the cold — and no one really understood what was happening,” Tsikhanouski said. “Blood came out of my mouth, from my nose. Sometimes I had convulsions — but it was all because of the cold, that terrible cold when you sit in those punishment cells.”
“There is no medical care in prison — none at all, just so you know …” he said.
Tsikhanouski said conditions slightly improved after the February 2024 death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a prison colony.
“When Alexei Navalny died, I thought, that’ll probably be me soon … And then something changed. It was clear that someone at the top said, ‘Make sure he doesn’t die here. We don’t need that problem.’ It got just a bit softer ... At some point, word came down: Tsikhanouski must be kept alive, not killed.”
Pointing the finger at Putin
Tsikhanouski blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for propping up Lukashenko, both during the 2020 protests and to this day.
Russia supports Belarus’s economy with loans and subsidized oil and gas. In return, Belarus has allowed Moscow to use its territory to launch troops and weapons into Ukraine, and hosts Russian forces and nuclear weapons.
Tsikhanouski expressed strong support for Ukraine, calling the Kremlin a common evil for both countries.
“If it weren’t for Putin, we would already be living in a different country. Putin recognized Lukashenko’s victory in the election, he called black white. That is, he refused to see the falsifications,” Tsikhanouski said. “They help each other. Because of Putin, this illegal government is still in Belarus.”
Some analysts have speculated that by releasing the charismatic and energetic Tsikhanouski, Belarusian authorities may be trying to sow division within the opposition. But Tsikhanouski insists he has no intention of challenging his wife’s role as the internationally recognized head of the Belarusian opposition, and he calls for unity.
“Under no circumstances do I plan to criticize any Belarusians, condemn or complain about anyone,” he said.
Tsikhanouski says he will not stop fighting and wants to return to active work as both a political figure and a blogger. But he is skeptical that Lukashenko, now 70, will step down voluntarily, despite his age.
“I don’t know anymore — will he go or won’t he?” Tsikhanouski said. “Many people say nothing will change until he dies. But I’m still counting on democratic forces winning.”