• English Site
• >World
• >Middle East
• >

  A Peace Mission: Obama's Offer to the Islamic World

A Peace Mission Obama's Offer to the Islamic World

By Christoph Schult, Gabor Steingart and Bernhard Zand

Part 2: Israeli Advisor: 'Obama's Approach Could Do Irreparable Damage to the World'

For the overwhelming majority of Muslims, Obama's words mark a groundbreaking shift. For eight long years, or almost the entire term of his predecessor, they bore the stigma of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Obama's description of Islam and its culture being on equal footing with the West resonated far more powerfully in the Islamic world than his criticism of its fundamentalists.

This is an unsettling message for the radicals on the fringes of Islam, whose reactions reveal how seriously they take Obama. The attempts by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden to quickly place himself in the headlines before Obama's speech seemed desperate -- both in the Middle East and in the West. "Bin Laden senses that nobody wants to listen to him anymore," says Assad Abd al-Rahman, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur from Jeddah who interrupted his pilgrimage to Mecca for a few hours to listen to Obama's speech. "Every Muslim who thinks for himself now knows that this man is wrong."

And thoughtful Muslims welcomed Obama's speech almost wholeheartedly. "Events like this do not happen frequently in international relations," says Abd al-Munaim Said, director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, told the Financial Times. "This is as big as Nixon's visit to China. After eight years of talk about the clash of civilizations, this guy comes to an Islamic country to make a point about our shared humanity."

But perhaps this enthusiasm in the Arab world is somewhat premature. Obama's doctrine consists of two things: his "yes, we can" brand of forceful idealism, and a realism free of illusions. The president and his team know that the two are best kept apart. For example, Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was visibly uncomfortable as he sat next to King Abdullah in an oversized wing chair in Riyadh. A president who is normally never awkward seemed sheepish as he removed the gold chain the king had hung around his neck. It was a Kissinger moment of American foreign policy. Not even the young, cool Washington of the Obama administration can afford to turn its back on such a reactionary, immensely wealthy and important kingdom as Saudi Arabia. Nothing less than strategic interests and future coalitions are at stake.

Washington's relationship with the Israelis will be structured just as delicately as its handling of Arabs. It is symptomatic, for example, that Jerusalem was not informed in advance about the contents of the Cairo speech.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who watched the speech at his office with a group of his closest advisors, is said to have felt as if he had been "hit by a bus."

The Israeli prime minister was particularly disappointed by the passage on Iran. A Netanyahu advisor characterized the US offer to enter into negotiations without preconditions as "naïve and childish," noting: "Obama's approach could do irreparable damage to the world."

The administration in Jerusalem was equally displeased over what the US president had to say about the Palestinian conflict. Obama mentioned the word "Palestine" several times and spoke of giving the Palestinians an independent state. Netanyahu's advisors were upset that Obama had drawn parallels between the suffering of the Jews and that of the Palestinians.

Netanyahu is now faced with a crucial decision. If he gives in to American demands, his coalition government will likely fall apart. But if he refuses to recognize the two-state solution, Israel could face international isolation -- and alienation from its protective power, the United States.

A number of senior Israeli officials have already accused Obama of ignoring an agreement his predecessor reached with Jerusalem, under which Bush agreed that new residential construction could proceed within the boundaries of existing settlements. The Obama administration is taking a different approach.

When Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Washington early last week to meet with Obama's national security advisor, James Jones, the president appeared unexpectedly in the meeting. As White House Press Secretary Gibbs reported during the president's trip, Obama spent 12 minutes in Jones' office. The accounts of what transpired in those 12 minutes vary. Barak, after returning to Israel, mentioned an "ultimatum of sorts," which gives the Israeli government four to six weeks to come up with a decision on halting the construction of settlements and an independent Palestinian state.

Press Secretary Gibbs said there was no talk of an ultimatum. But when he consulted Denis McDonough, the president's foreign policy advisor, McDonough confirmed the Israeli defense minister's version. According to McDonough, the president had been "very clear" in conversations with officials from the region. An Israel prepared to compromise is the ticket the president needs to restructure the Middle East.

If Obama has his way, a worldwide process of "mutual engagement" will now begin. The United States, in a show of goodwill, is doing its utmost to resolve the conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

If the nuclear program proceeds at its current pace, Iran will likely be producing enough low-enriched uranium within a year to possess the prototype of a nuclear bomb in a few years. This is Martin Indyk's assessment of the situation. Far from being a neo-conservative alarmist, Indyk is a committed Democrat who served as US Ambassador to Israel under former President Bill Clinton.

From the beginning, Indyk advised Obama to pursue a policy of diplomacy based on conversation, a policy designed to prevent a military strike, partly by putting preparations for a strike into motion. A policy of engagement alone offers no guarantee of success, says Indyk, but it does justify harsher options in the event of failure. "Obama will face a difficult decision at that point," says Indyk.

It appears that Obama is trying to prove that he is capable of doing both: talking and acting, listening and striking.

A senior editor at Newsweek was recently on board Air Force One with the president. He subsequently described Obama's comments about a possible military strike as the most intensive segment of a one-on-one interview he had had with the president: "His eyes flashed when I asked about his willingness to use American military force, first in Pakistan and then in Iran." "I don't take options off the table when it comes to US security, period," the otherwise friendly Obama said. "And I assure you I'm not naive," he added.

Obama has raised expectations once again with his speech in Cairo. But he will have to produce results in the foreseeable future. The world is still in awe of Obama for being such a skilled orator, but now he must avoid the next pitfall, when people begin to say: Well, he can certainly talk.