Memo to the Arab World: Good news and bad news with the re-election of Barack Obama to the White House.
The good news is that a victory by the Republican candidate Mitt Romney would have given Israel and its current leadership a free hand at continuing a policy of arrogance that will lead the region towards greater mayhem. Romney’s lack of experience in foreign affairs compiled with his extreme pro-Israeli stance could have encouraged Israel’s hawkish government towards military adventurism rather than to seek solutions through diplomacy and dialogue, the latter being the only way anything will ever get resolved. Perhaps Obama, who sees things somewhat differently, might help keep Mr. Netanyahu’s government in check until there is a change in Israel’s political landscape.
On the other hand, while there may be reason to rejoice with Obama in the Oval Office, seeing that Israel might have to think twice before turning to its military instead of its foreign service to address matters of national importance, don’t expect anything drastically different to happen in the Middle East in so far as US involvement goes.
The enthusiasm with which Obama came to Washington four years ago and the eagerness with which he wanted to tackle the Middle East problem has followed in the footsteps of others before him who have also started out with similar vigour only to be stonewalled from one side or the other. Just ask Gunnar Jarring, John Rogers, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and to Bill Clinton, to name but a few.
The next four years, in so far as active and positive involvement by the United States in the Middle East, are likely to be as lean as the past four years have been; in other words, minimal involvement and dismal at that.
Read more: http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/What-an-Obama-Victory-Means-for-the-Middle-East.html
The good news is that a victory by the Republican candidate Mitt Romney would have given Israel and its current leadership a free hand at continuing a policy of arrogance that will lead the region towards greater mayhem. Romney’s lack of experience in foreign affairs compiled with his extreme pro-Israeli stance could have encouraged Israel’s hawkish government towards military adventurism rather than to seek solutions through diplomacy and dialogue, the latter being the only way anything will ever get resolved. Perhaps Obama, who sees things somewhat differently, might help keep Mr. Netanyahu’s government in check until there is a change in Israel’s political landscape.
On the other hand, while there may be reason to rejoice with Obama in the Oval Office, seeing that Israel might have to think twice before turning to its military instead of its foreign service to address matters of national importance, don’t expect anything drastically different to happen in the Middle East in so far as US involvement goes.
The enthusiasm with which Obama came to Washington four years ago and the eagerness with which he wanted to tackle the Middle East problem has followed in the footsteps of others before him who have also started out with similar vigour only to be stonewalled from one side or the other. Just ask Gunnar Jarring, John Rogers, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and to Bill Clinton, to name but a few.
The next four years, in so far as active and positive involvement by the United States in the Middle East, are likely to be as lean as the past four years have been; in other words, minimal involvement and dismal at that.
Read more: http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/What-an-Obama-Victory-Means-for-the-Middle-East.html
No comments:
Post a Comment