US needs a ‘reset’ in the Middle East

It is ironic that the Obama administration is retrenching and retreating from the Middle East, has withdrawn from Iraq and is drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. Not to mention that Barack Obama is also facing a major challenge on the domestic front from the defiant Republicans amid skyrocketing national debt approaching $17 trillion (Dh62.39 trillion) and sequestration and budget cuts.

With the White House pivoting towards Asia, the US president has embarked on a tour of the Middle East — his maiden trip after his re-election. Obama will also visit Israel, the Occupied Territories and Jordan. He probably plans to reassure the edgy Israelis of his administration’s commitment to the security and well-being of the Jewish state, especially after the direct criticism levelled against his administration for its choice of Chuck Hagel as a candidate for the secretary of defence.

The divisions were evident given Hagel’s thorny confirmation proceedings — the questions laden with doubt and the poor support Hagel got in the final tally for his confirmation as secretary of defence.

It is a pity that Obama has elected not to bring forth any fundamental initiatives, nor to visit the pivotal states in the region like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, thus continuing the lacklustre and mixed record on the Middle East he exhibited in his first term.

In my column titled ‘Showing sincerity of purpose’ (Gulf News, February 4), I argued that “there is an urgent need in Obama’s last term to come up with a genuine initiative to move the Middle East process towards that lofty goal of a two-state solution”. This is especially true given the Obama administration’s mixed record in terms of Middle East achievements during his first term in office.

There have not been any major breakthroughs and resolution of issues of the stalemated peace process, Iran’s nuclear programme, the strategic security vacuum in the Arabian Gulf, and dealing with the Arab Spring and the ascendance of political Islam.

To make things even more tricky, the US ‘pivot towards Asia’, away from the traditional centres of Europe and the Middle East caused a lot of anxiety in the region.

Therefore, the expectations are low that Obama’s Middle East visit will result in any breakthroughs or would launch any initiative to jumpstart the morbid peace process.

In his first term, Obama clashed personally with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and they do not see eye to eye on colony expansion and how best to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme.

Although Obama seemed to reassure the Israelis before his visit that Iran is at least a year away from successfully developing a nuclear weapon, he was also categorical that the US would not stand back and allow Tehran to acquire such a weapon.

Obama said he had always been clear “that Washington will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power ... I have been crystal clear about my position on Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. That is a red line for us. It is not only something that would be dangerous for Israel. It would be dangerous for the world.”

So, the whole purpose of the visit is dwarfed by reassurances to the nervous Israelis, who after two months of the election, struggled to form a cabinet that is more centrist than the outgoing cabinet.

Moreover, things have become even more complicated in the region.

The Syrian revolution has just completed its second bloody year and there is the prospect of a spillover effect that could threaten a wider conflict and regional war, spreading from Syria all the way to the Gulf.

The Sunni-Shiite strife has reached dangerous proportions in many countries and that could divide the region even further.

It is unfortunate that the expectations of Obama’s first visit to the region are low and lack any major initiatives and plans to tackle the sticking issues that have bedevilled the region for far too long.

The visit is more of a listening tour and taking stock of things, rather than coming up with bold and significant moves. Hence, very little will change.

This was confirmed by the, US deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who told reporters that “the president would not bring any “specific” new peace proposals, but would use the opportunity to “take stock” of the prospects for future efforts”.

So, after all these years, the US president will take a listening tour to take stock for the future ... Nobody expects the president to make any monumental policy announcements or unveil any new plans to revive the Middle East peace process.

It seems that Obama’s sole visit to Israel is to calm the Jewish state down about Iran’s nuclear programme and to speak directly to the Israeli people about the close ties between the US and Israel.

Unfortunately, none of the fundamental lingering issues that threaten and could undermine US interests in this troubled region are likely to be tackled or discussed seriously on this visit.

The absence of US leadership in the Middle East is clear for all to see. The French and other European powers led the operation to oust Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, fought Al Qaida in Mali, and now the French and the British are leaders of the campaign to arm the Syrian rebels. For sure, the US is supportive of these acts, but it is nowhere to be seen as the leader of the free world.

In 2009, there was a lot of talk in Washington about the need to reset the relationship between the US and Russia. It was an attempt to make a new start in the US- Russian relations since the Cold War, and to embark on a process to reach constructive relations. Perhaps it is high time for the US to repeat that strategy vis-a-vis the Middle East.

This could be a move that is worth exploring by Obama, not only for his legacy, but for the credibility of the US and to safeguard its interest and not to squander an opportunity, to reassure its other allies, besides Israel.

Professor Abdullah Al Shayji is the chairman of the political science department, Kuwait University. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/docshayji