Is the Arab Spring really an "American" Revolution? According to President Obama and his speechwriters, the answer is, surprisingly, yes.
Is the Arab Spring really an "American" Revolution? According to President Obama and his speechwriters, the answer is, surprisingly, yes.
There remains a sense in the Arab world, and the international community at large, that America has lost the will or perhaps the ability to shape events. At present juncture, Obama seems to be content to recap the obvious in lofty rhetoric.
We have heard all of this before -- in Cairo, at the Nobel ceremony in Oslo. The overall composition, as well as its individual ingredients, is designed to play on feeling rather than to engage thought. Certainly not critical cognition.
President Obama's address needlessly stepped on its own core message by opening yet another inopportune rift with the Israeli government on the eve of Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with the president.
President Barack Obama has finally delivered his much anticipated speech on the Middle East, however, it fell short of expectations on two major issues.
Contrary to the hopes articulated by some Arabs and Israelis, Obama's speech did not amount to a "game changer." There is little the Obama administration can do to change the status quo. Why pretend otherwise?
No doubt some of Obama's advisors are telling him that doing anything on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this point in his term, other than seeking to placate the American Jewish right, is a losing bet. They are mistaken.
On Thursday, Obama will "reset" American policy in the Middle East with a major address. But barring an almost inconceivable policy shift, all signs indicate that the Pentagon will quietly maintain antithetical policies.
The U.S. has shaped its policy toward the Middle East according to the Chinese proverb of "killing the chicken to scare the monkey." Gaddafi is the undead chicken. Bashar al-Assad and Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa are the unscared monkeys.
Obama's "pragmatism" is based on a process of muddling through the path of least resistance, under which pressure from powerful political players, and the impact of the media, end up determining the final policy decision.
The revolutionary wave in the Arab world is a stroke of good fortune, creating circumstances wherein we can restore our standing as the "good guys." Obama and his minions seem to have no awareness of this whatsoever.
Washington's support for authoritarian rulers has yielded neither lasting stability nor moderation, though it has compromised our own liberal values and engendered anti-American sentiment on the street.
As long as the U.S. remains the world's No. 1 supplier of security assistance to repressive governments in the Middle East and elsewhere, the need for massive nonviolent action in support for freedom and democracy may be no greater than Egypt.
Despite Western stereotypes to the contrary, Islamic countries have been at least as prone to large-scale nonviolent struggles as other societies.
The State Department is considering replacing George Mitchell with someone who brings new momentum to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Wexler, not only fits the coin but possesses the qualities that could make a difference.
The Obama administration is turning its alchemic powers toward Palestine. It is aiming to fashion a 'success' out of the shambles created by its lame failure to stand up to the Israeli government of Bibi Netanyahu.
The situation in Lebanon is novel insofar as the potential stakes of war are much higher. But the strategy of drawing Israel into a war and then blaming it for "aggression" is depressingly familiar.
At the Nixon Center, it will be Chas Freeman vs. Rob Satloff on the topic: "Israel: Strategic Asset or Liability?" This is one of the few genuine debates on Israel-Middle East issues that I have seen organized in Washington
There is a new rule, probably the only visible Lebanon policy under President Barack Obama's administration: every US official visiting Damascus must pass by Beirut.
The rumor mill may be the strongest weapon of those insiders eager to push U.S. policy in a new direction when it comes to Israel. The unprecedented buzz of speculation already in the air could be considered their first victory.
For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In the case of Israel and Palestine, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours.