Opinion

The Great Debate

Obama faces only hard choices in Mideast

By Aaron David Miller
December 6, 2012

The conventional wisdom in Washington these days is that a newly empowered president, freed from the political constraints of reelection, will have more discretion, drive and determination to take on the Middle East’s most intractable problems.

Don’t believe it. This looks a lot more compelling on paper than in practice. Should President Barack Obama be tempted to embrace it, he may well find himself on the short end of the legacy stick.

Once again many on the left are summoning up the spirit of Obama unchained. Those who saw a new kind of American president in the Middle East – tough on Israel; sensitive to the Islamists and the Arabs (see his March 2010 Cairo speech), and bent on engaging the world in a spirit of mutual tolerance and respect – hope for his return.

The president may well try to deal with some of the region’s knotty problems. But it will be in a more deliberate and transactional manner – not with the transformational zeal of his first year in office. Here’s why:

Governing is prose. This president found that out most clearly in the Middle East, where his hopes for a quick breakthrough in the Israel-Palestinian issue; engagement with the Iranian mullahs and hopes for an Afghan surge gave way to the crueler realities of an angry, broken and dysfunctional region.

Obama, a wartime president from the get-go ‑ albeit one with a Nobel Peace Prize ‑ morphed into a less reckless and ideological version of George W. Bush. He doubled down with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai in his own surge; buckled to pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements; carried on a predator drone strategy that has killed more than 3,000 people, 10 times the number of his predecessor, and kept Guantanamo open. Obama once burned will be twice shy about allowing his rhetoric and hopes to exceed reality ‑ particularly in a region that offers no quick successes or painless legacy opportunities.

Governing is about choosing. America can attend to its own broken house and have a competent foreign policy, too. Obama proved that in his first term. But a president confronting difficult domestic challenges can’t afford costly failures abroad that raise questions about his competency, erode his political currency and accentuate his lame duck status. The issues Obama now confronts, however ‑ particularly Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace ‑ are loaded with domestic political explosive power.

To become more proactive on any of them will expose a president to criticism from Republicans and even some in his own party. All at a time when the public wants much more attention paid to fixing America crumbling infrastructure and foreclosure problems rather than repairing the houses of everyone else.

Migraines or root canals: Take your pick. It would be one thing if the problems Obama faces were easy ones. But they are not. They include an historic conflict in which neither Netanyahu nor Palestinian President Abbas is willing or able to pay the price on the big issues of borders, refugees and Jerusalem; Syria’s imploding civil war, which  has no easy courses for intervention, Chinese and Russian support for the Assad regime and a fractured opposition that includes elements Washington would rather not see armed; and an Iran seemingly determined to pursue a nuclear weapons capability though Israel and even the United States threaten military action.

None of these problems offers the prospect of a quick breakthrough. Each is instead a long movie ‑ with an outcome, not a permanent solution, and likely characterized by great uncertainty, not clarity.

This is not an argument for inaction, however. There are risks to the national interest in doing nothing. But there is a compelling argument for caution and for an unforgiving assessment of options. Most important, Obama needs to prioritize. He cannot at the same time take a lead role in fixing Syria, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and cut a deal with Iran.

Obama should focus on being smart about Iran, using tough and imaginative diplomacy to do a deal ‑ while keeping a military strike as a real option. Who knows, if he can succeed there, he just might expand the number of options on the other two.

PHOTO: President Barack Obama delivering a major speech about the Middle East in the Grand Hall of Cairo University June 4, 2009.  REUTERS/MENA/Pool

 

Comments
6 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

That because America, along with Europe before us, created half of the problems we see today in the middle eats. I am glad that America, isreal, and Europe have only bad options there. Its all we deserve!!!

Posted by KyleDexter | Report as abusive
 

*Middle East

Posted by KyleDexter | Report as abusive
 

Politicians in the United States of America need to stop kowtowing to the pro-Israeli lobby, and make the United States and the IUnited States people a greater priority than their election (Mrs. Clinton) or reelection. Israel’s interests are not parallel with the United States. Israel lost the moral high ground at Deir Yassin. Backing Israel diminishes U.
S. standing, puts the American people at risk, and is morally bankrupt.

Consider the following actions by our “ally” Israel…
• the perfidy of Jonathan
Pollard, a spy for Israel
• Israel’s air attack on
the U. S. S. Liberty in which U.S. sailors were killed and wounded
• the massacres fomented 
and abetted by Ariel Sharon at Sabra and Shatila
• the land grab of 
Palestinian territory
• the on-going 
colonization of the West Bank with so-called settlements
• war crimes in Gaza – yes,
 war crimes
• Palestinian civilians 
killed in the Qana bombardment.


If the foregoing points are unimportant, explain so to the Corries, whose daughter Rachel, a witness for peace and justice was crushed by an IDF bulldozer.

Posted by noslack2327 | Report as abusive
 

I hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right.

This nation will not survive another four years of milquetoast Obama.

We need a strong leader to fight for THIS country against its enemies, foreign and ESPECIALLY DOMESTIC.

In his first term Obama could have done almost anything he wanted and the American people would have backed him.

But he squandered the opportunity he had been given by the American people, choosing instead to continue the Bush II doctrine of domestic economic policies that have split this country between rich and poor, and the Bush II doctrine of war in the Middle East.

Now we are actually far worse off because of it.

I, like many Americans, see Obama as the lesser of two evils, but this country needs and deserves so much more than that.

I pray we will not be disappointed with his performance in the next four years.

Posted by Gordon2352 | Report as abusive
 

Noslack, you are simply talking non-sense.
By a quick review of history you can clearly see that what you’re trying to do is to brainwash people into hatred, that’s sick.
And on another note, great artice, very well written.

Posted by Empricial | Report as abusive
 

President Obama has brought respect back for the USA.
Even China and Russia are now trying to work with the USA on important issues (like Syria and Iran).
Respect for others always works better than blind war monger arrogance. President Obama is a lot like Reagan in his foreign policies. Bush was a war monger Imperialist.

Posted by americanguy | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •