New trends in US Middle East policy

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, the US government has pursued a policy perceived by America's friends and foes alike as overtly aggressive.

Washington appeared to be less patient with diplomacy and more inclined to use military force especially in the Middle East. Over the past few weeks, however, since the election of US President Barack Obama, new dynamics have emerged in the way the US administration approaches the region. There is now ample evidence to suggest that Washington has abandoned the idealist policies of the past eight years and embraced a more pragmatic posture in dealing with mass of intractable problems that engulf its relations with the Arab world.

After years of total apathy, for example, Washington has become increasingly involved in the Middle East peace process by appointing special envoy to the region. It has also expressed a desire to open a dialogue with both Syria and Iran after years of heightened tension with the two countries. The most important development in US policy, however, seems to have taken place last week in Beirut in a meeting that brought together prominent American academics and representatives from both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Despite the unofficial status of the meeting, it is widely believed that it could not have taken place without the blessing of the Obama administration. In addition, most of the American participants are known to have strong ties with the White House. The meeting was not in fact reported but nobody has made any effort to make it secret either. As the first public contact between the US and Islamists, dubbed by Washington as terrorists, the meeting signifies a major shift in policy. It underlies the flexibility of the new US administration and its ability to adapt to new political realities, engaging what appears to be powerful actors who have in fact complicated Washington's strategy in the region since the invasion of Iraq.

The meeting, one must note, took place less than a month after Hamas agreed to a ceasefire that ended the Israeli attack on Gaza. Observers believe that Hamas has emerged from the Gaza war stronger than it was before.

The increasing popularity of Hamas may have awakened Washington to the fact that the movement may well emerge as the legitimate successor of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which has lost power, prestige and credibility during the last few years; since the death of its historic leader Yasser Arafat. Should Hamas succeed in freeing hundreds of Palestinians in the ongoing prisoner-swap negotiations with Israel, this would further enhance its stature inside and outside the Occupied Palestinian territories. Given the fact that the Obama administration has shown more interest in pursuing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ignoring the rising power of Hamas would be a fatal political mistake.

The success of the peace talks is becoming increasingly dependent on getting Hamas directly involved in these talks or, at least, making it refrain from opposing them. Besides, the US administration could not afford ignoring the increasing pragmatism of the resistance movement towards the peace process, the PNA and its desire to participate in the political process. After all, this is exactly what the US has been asking Hamas to do all along and Hamas seems to be responding.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has emerged as a major political power in Lebanon after the 2006 war with Israel. The party had also shown its clout last year when it seized control of the Lebanese capital in a matter of hours. More important is that Hezbollah has shown unprecedented pragmatism when its usual theme of liberating Occupied Jerusalem went unmentioned during its leader's televised addresses concerning the war on Gaza.

In addition, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah refrained from promising real support for Hamas and hinted that he would not open a new front against Israel in order to ease the pressure on Gaza. According to observers, Hezbollah and allies have a good chance to win the June 7 general elections in Lebanon. What makes the US even more anxious is the fact that Hezbollah, which currently has 13 Parliament members, could double this number if it succeeds in forming solid election alliances with other parties.

At last, Washington appears to have reached the conclusion that there are problems that cannot be resolved through force alone. In terms of strategic thinking, the US seems to have grasped the key notion in international politics that diplomacy remains the state's raison d'état and that the use of force is one way of serving it.

Indeed, diplomacy, dialogue and inducement can, more often, achieve what war, or the threat of war, cannot. We hope that this conclusion would guide US policy in the Middle East over the coming years and help clean up the mess that has been made by the arrogance of power.

Dr Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University.