Obama has the final say

On a recent visit to Dubai, veteran American diplomat Richard W. Murphy spoke to Weekend Review about the significance of four key appointments made by the Barack Obama administration and how they are expected to affect American policy in the Middle East.

Secretary of state Hillary Clinton has been echoing her predecessor's statements about the Middle East, except for a token condemnation of the demolition of houses in Occupied Jerusalem. Do you think we can expect the same from her?

Whoever the secretary of state may be, everything depends on there being no light between them and the White House.

I believe there is no light between Clinton and the president. She will be his principal adviser on foreign policy but he will be the one who decides. It will be his foreign policy.

Disagreements will be worked out in private, within the administration. You say she was repeating views.

Policy does not change 180 degrees with the advent of a different party in the White House. The policies are supposed to reflect America's national interests.

So what you are saying is that it doesn't matter if the secretary of state has certain views and leanings. The president's standpoint is above all else.

That is true. It is his policy. But I'm also saying that some interests are constant … Clinton has been at great pains to express that our commitment to Israeli security is a given … [This is] part of the administration's relationship with those in the American public who will watch closely for any signs of wavering about the basic issue of Israeli security.

That point used to deeply irritate many in the region. I think people now shrug and say: “Well it's American policy that Israel should be secure. We can live with that but what about our security?'' And that's good that you've gotten beyond criticising the US for our commitment to Israeli security.

How is Dennis Ross going to be received in the region? Do you think he is in a position to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue?

Dennis has been very public in his writings and speeches about the Iranian nuclear problem.

I think the president is sending a signal and looking for a response that those in power in Iran are interested in unclenching the fist and exploring ways in which our interests might overlap. They did overlap at one point over Afghanistan and Iraq.

If the Obama administration is interested in opening a new chapter with Tehran, why would it appoint an envoy it knows won't go down too well with Iran?

Would any appointment go down well with Iran? It is a poisoned atmosphere.

Is Ross an effort to appease Israel?

That could be one element. But “appease'' is a very loaded word. Please Israel, yes. Israel didn't have anything against Obama the [presidential] candidate but they didn't know him.

They know Dennis very well and they trust him. I think [the region should know that] we are not about to turn our backs on our friends in the region and [it] should welcome the efforts to reach out to Iran.

Ross is recognised as a very able analyst and one who knows his way around Washington.

Charles Freeman, who was asked to chair the National Intelligence Council (NIC), has been the target of a bitter campaign to discredit him for his criticism of Israel. What do you think his appointment signifies? He's very controversial, isn't he? (Freeman has withdrawn his acceptance of the offer to chair the NIC since this interview, citing pressure from the Israel lobby)

I don't know him personally. He was my successor as ambassador in Saudi Arabia, twice removed. He built his career on China and US-China relations.

I know it is trite to say this but he is known to bring truth to power. Right or wrong, what is often lacking in Washington is a welcome of dissident views.

It is a sensitive position and some of those who see any questioning of Israeli positions as extremely dangerous for Israel are obviously nervous.

Their attacks, pretty tough attacks, started when the appointment was first rumoured, then they intensified. Isolation has been the great danger of Washington.

People are pinning a lot of hope on George Mitchell as Middle East envoy but can one man do that much? How far can he go?

We will see. He can go as far as the president wants him to go. Again, there should be no light between him and the White House. Washington can be the scene of turf battles and feuds but his reputation is against that.

You have evidence of that in the report that was published at the end of the [Bill] Clinton administration, when he commissioned him to write a report on the Middle East.

It apparently stressed [Israeli] settlements [colonies] and [Palestinian] violence. Not a remarkable conclusion but it tells you where he was and, I assume, where he is today.

What does he bring? He does inspire confidence as a man who is trying to bring more of a common approach out of opposing factions. I tell you, the transformation of some politicians in Northern Ireland [where he mediated a peace process] is as near a miracle as you'll get.

Does he make Israel nervous?

Yeah (laughs). He is a challenge.

Veteran of many diplomatic missions

Richard W. Murphy has specialised in Near Eastern affairs since 1959. As an American diplomat he served primarily in the Near East and was the assistant secretary of state for the Near East and South Asia from 1983 to 1989.

During that period he was particularly active in the Israeli-Arab peace process and worked closely with the governments of the Arabian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war when the United States committed its navy to convoy duty in the Gulf.

From 1989 to 2004 he was a senior fellow for the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.

Since 2004 he has worked on the Middle East as president of Richard W. Murphy Associates and visits that region several times a year.

He has been a consultant for Harvard University, Royal Dutch Shell and several US companies, including Travelport.

Murphy has been a frequent commentator for NPR, CNN, BBC, FOXNews and Al Jazeera television.

He has written for ‘The New York Times', ‘Washington Post', ‘Financial Times', ‘The International Herald Tribune' and ‘The Christian Science Monitor'.

He was chairman of Friends of UNRWA from 2005 to 2009, a board member of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a trustee emeritus of the American University of Beirut, and former chairman of the Middle East Institute in Washington from 1993 to 2001.