Newszine

Middle East Politics

Will an Obama presidency mean more shrewd US diplomacy in the Middle East?

A lot of buzz words have been tossed around regarding an Obama presidency. You’ve heard them: “Change” and “Hope,” just to name the most prevalent ones.

And while all US citizens are hoping to see Obama implement his changes, an entire section of the World — if not all of it — is hoping to see the same.

The last 8 years under the Bush administration has been too damaging for US-Middle Eastern relations. Many former Middle Eastern allies of the US saw themselves marginalized to the point that one would think that the country in question just finished an all-out war with the US.

In the case of Syria: This country was a known US ally, but after Syria opposed Bush’s unfounded reasons for attacking Iraq, this country was branded as a ‘rogue’ nation. What does that even mean?

The vagary of this title really underscores Bush’s reckless disposition in dealing with the Middle East. The message was, abridged: “If you disagree with us, we’ll cut you off.” This was no way to build any sort of common ground between two sovereign countries.

Now, it’s also well known that before the presidency was won, both Obama, and his vice president, Joe Biden, had favored open unconditional diplomatic talks with Iran. A country that, according to Bush was a part of a greater “axis of evil” (again, I don’t know what that means, but bare with me).

Is Obama following through on his promises of change?

Early signs would indicate that, at the least, he’s apprehensive in a full-fledged change in foreign policy.

And, again, as stated before, Iran is at the center of this discussion: After Obama won the presidential election of the United States, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent Obama a message of congratulations. Obama was not very welcoming of message, and responded with words unchararistic of someone hoping to build bridges of mutual respect and diplomacy. While Obama quickly responded to other world leaders’ messages, he didn’t immediately respond to the one from Ahmadinejad. Obama instead stressed the approach approach that he would be taking with Iran:

“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening,” he said.

“Iran’s support of terrorist organisations, I think, is something that has to cease.”

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Obama’s response, the fact that he didn’t respond at all to Ahmadinejad’s gesture, which was only to congratulate his presidency, is unfortunate. If Obama can’t accept a letter of congratulations and return a simple, “Thanks!” how can we expect to constructively tackle the more daunting issues that the US and Iran must resolve?

For Obama to live up to the reasons why the American people elected him, a more positive dialogue must be formed. Or the “Hope” that we heard so much on Obama’s road to the presidency will only turn into “More of the Same.”