There were mixed reactions in the Middle East to President-elect Barack Obama’s unveiling of his foreign policy and national security team last week. Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) welcomed his designation of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. The Palestinians cannot but hope that under Obama, Clinton will invigorate a stale peace process. The Annapolis momentum has all but gone. President George W. Bush’s promise to see the two parties reaching a final status agreement before the end of this year will not happen.
Palestinian hopes maybe built on sentiments rather than reality. The former first lady may be viewed in positive light because of the fact that under the two terms of her husband, Bill Clinton, the peace process was flying high. Palestinian leaders were regular visitors to Washington and the White House. President Clinton embraced peace efforts and invested much of his time and good will in trying to bring the two sides closer than they had ever been to a final agreement.
Hillary accompanied her husband on a historic visit to Gaza Strip, as guests of Yasser Arafat, in 1998 where she toured refugee camps and expressed sympathy with the plight of Palestinians. But that was almost a decade ago.
Clinton of the present is a sophisticated political animal. Until early this year she was running a vicious campaign to win the nomination of her party to contest the US presidential elections. She lost to Obama. But even before that she had become a heavyweight politician after winning her seat as senator for the state of New York in 2000 where Jewish votes tilted in her favor. Sitting on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton’s defense of Israeli policies was characteristic. She had voted for the Iraq war resolution, although she, like most of her party colleagues, became a critic of the Bush policies in Iraq.
Ehud Olmert welcomed her nomination as secretary of state and described her as a friend of Israel and the Jewish people. Hamas was not so enthusiastic. Most Arab governments were silent. The Iranians still remember Clinton’s direct threat that she will “obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel.
Obama’s decision to keep Robert Gates at the helm of the Pentagon should have come as good news to the Al-Maliki government in Baghdad. Under his watch most strategic understandings with the Iraq government were reached. He had implemented the military surge with considerable success and struck alliances with Sunni tribes, which were instrumental in chasing out Al-Qaida from their traditional strongholds in Al-Anbar and other provinces.
And although Gates was member of the Iraq Study Group (The Baker-Hamilton bipartisan committee), which in 2006 made recommendations for a phased-out withdrawal, Obama’s decision to keep him is expected to influence the new president’s desire to quit Iraq as soon as possible. So will his new national security adviser, retired Navy Gen. Jim Jones, who has expressed reservations about a quick pullout from Iraq. Since 2007 Jones has been working as special envoy for Middle East security with the Palestinians and Israelis.
Jones’ appointment to a sensitive position was met with reservation in security circles in Israel because of comments Jones has supposedly made criticizing Israeli policies in the occupied territories.
The Syrians will probably be happy with Obama’s new team. Gates, again as former member of the ISG, favors dialogue with Damascus as a way to distance Syria from Tehran and influence its relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas.
It is too early to make a full reading of Obama’s Middle East policy. We know that he will be personally involved in guiding his team. And we also know that he will dedicate a good deal to shaping strategies on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has warned that the Bush administration had taken its eye off Afghanistan and said that his priority will be to refocus the war effort on that country.
And we know that he will have to decide on how to deal with Iran, which continues to enrich uranium and has rejected US and European compromises. For Israel taking out the so-called Iranian threat will remain a priority. Some Arab analysts have warned recently that Israel may force that issue on the new president by launching a pre-emptive strike in the coming few weeks.
But we also know that the new president will be busy in the first few months of his term with the crisis that is crippling the US economy. That’s not so good news for the Palestinians who are running out of time and are incapable of stopping unilateral Israeli actions in the territories. Furthermore, failure to end the Gaza siege or reach a deal with Hamas has further weakened Mahmoud Abbas, who will face a constitutional challenge in the first week of January when his term comes to an end.
US pundits have applauded Obama’s national security team, although some have challenged his mantra of bringing change to Washington. He will need a seasoned team as he faces his first immediate foreign policy test in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks and the stressed relations between Delhi and Islamabad, two nuclear powers that are both close allies.
The Middle East will feature high on the new administration’s agenda regardless of how Obama will like to arrange his priorities. The region is suffering from a number of crises and while each is as important as the other, each will need a new approach. Sadly some issues will deteriorate as the new Obama team works out a new game plan.
— Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist based in Jordan.
