Israel Matzav

Obama bringing the end of American dominance in the Middle East

Writing a review of the decline of American influence in the Middle East for the Emirati English-language daily The National, The Beirut Star's Michael Young ends off with this devastating critique.

Today, the combination of economic necessity and Mr Obama's inclination to end, or at least substantially downgrade, America's commitment to the Middle East, is provoking a fundamental shift in official American attitudes. Yet the growing isolationism in America today is dissimilar to anything we've seen before - for instance the national self-doubt of the mid-1970s after Vietnam, which was exacerbated by years of economic stagnation and inflation.

Even during the days of President Jimmy Carter, often regarded, fairly or not, as a yardstick for failed leadership, the US never lost its sense of underlying purpose. There was a strategy guiding foreign affairs, and it was containment of the Soviet Union. Today, it is difficult to discern what Mr Obama's strategy is, perhaps because he doesn't have one. Everywhere, people are wondering what America stands for; nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East.

And so Mr Obama is hastening the end 60 years of American pre-eminence in the Middle East. The US will not disappear. Its warships will continue patrolling the region's sea lanes, even if Mr Obama and his successors are more likely than not to avoid confrontations so as not to unbalance the books. The president has promised American support for Arab democracy, but will do very little to make good on that vow. Washington will increasingly subcontract resolutions of the region's crises to others, then will slowly realise that it is becoming marginal to Arab states and societies.

America's retreat may, in the long run, be a good thing. However, when empires fade away, instability usually follows, at least for a period of time. The "Pax", or peace, in Pax Americana may be something whose loss Arabs regret more than they do the Americana.

I disagree with Young on two points. First, I believe that Obama does have one policy goal in the Middle East: A 'Palestinian' reichlet. It is one of only two aspects of foreign policy that interests him, the other being another pipe dream, namely nuclear disarmament.

Second, Young regards America's decline as permanent. I disagree. If Obama is replaced in 2013 and his socialist agenda is wiped out, the American economy can recover and America can become a pre-eminent power (those of you who are old enough to remember when Reagan replaced Carter are familiar with the scenario).

What could go wrong? For starters, Obama could be re-elected..... For seconds, the Republicans could nominate an isolationist....

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Middle East policy

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:53 AM