By Ellen Laipson – The President’s speech on the Middle East was workmanlike on the issue of democratic change, and relatively more interesting on Arab-Israeli peace. Overall, his message was that the US will be on the right side of history, and our policies will be recalibrated so that promoting reforms and peaceful transitions become our driving impulse, replacing the long-standing focus on stability.
President Obama provided useful, but somewhat obvious, updates on each of the countries undergoing change. The most notable was his language on Syria – saying that President Assad should lead the process of change or get out of the way – and on Bahrain, where the call for a dialogue between the monarchy and the largely Shia opposition was accompanied by strong language about regime violence and human rights abuses. On Syria, some will be disappointed that he did not go further in calling for leadership change, as the US has in Libya and Yemen. On Bahrain, the message was at least in part to dispel the notion that the US has deferred to Saudi Arabia by avoiding any direct criticism of the Khalifa regime in Manama.
More interesting was the clarity of the message on Palestine, and the effective link he made between the demand for change across the Arab world, and the need for a fresh effort to get to the finish line on Palestine. The President outlined a path forward through direct negotiations to agreement on two of the four big “final status” issues. He declared that a deal could be made on security for Israel and negotiated land swaps leading to a state for Palestine, leaving for later the sensitive issues of Jerusalem and refugees. But the President then left it to the parties to begin this approach, and did not outline specific things that he could do to cajole or compel the parties to the negotiating table.
Overall, the speech did not match the President’s track record for inspiring ideas, eloquent language, and new conceptual thinking about long-standing problems. People in the region are disappointed or dismissive, suggesting that turning the principles of the speech into action will be a daunting task.
By Ellen Laipson – The President’s speech on the Middle East was workmanlike on the issue of democratic change, and relatively more interesting on Arab-Israeli peace. Overall, his message was that the US will be on the right side of history, and our policies will be recalibrated so that promoting reforms and peaceful transitions become our driving impulse, replacing the long-standing focus on stability.
President Obama provided useful, but somewhat obvious, updates on each of the countries undergoing change. The most notable was his language on Syria – saying that President Assad should lead the process of change or get out of the way – and on Bahrain, where the call for a dialogue between the monarchy and the largely Shia opposition was accompanied by strong language about regime violence and human rights abuses. On Syria, some will be disappointed that he did not go further in calling for leadership change, as the US has in Libya and Yemen. On Bahrain, the message was at least in part to dispel the notion that the US has deferred to Saudi Arabia by avoiding any direct criticism of the Khalifa regime in Manama.
More interesting was the clarity of the message on Palestine, and the effective link he made between the demand for change across the Arab world, and the need for a fresh effort to get to the finish line on Palestine. The President outlined a path forward through direct negotiations to agreement on two of the four big “final status” issues. He declared that a deal could be made on security for Israel and negotiated land swaps leading to a state for Palestine, leaving for later the sensitive issues of Jerusalem and refugees. But the President then left it to the parties to begin this approach, and did not outline specific things that he could do to cajole or compel the parties to the negotiating table.
Overall, the speech did not match the President’s track record for inspiring ideas, eloquent language, and new conceptual thinking about long-standing problems. People in the region are disappointed or dismissive, suggesting that turning the principles of the speech into action will be a daunting task.
Recent & Related
Made in the Gulf, Designed in America: How the Iran War Has Incentivized Drone Production in the GCC
The Orphan of the Summit of the Future: The Declaration on Future Generations
Experts React: Takeaways from the Trump-Xi Summit
Kabuki Diplomacy Between US and Iran at UNGA
Is the Iran War Worth It? Six Months Later, Still No
Why Iran-Backed Iraqi Armed Groups Are Hedging on Disarmament
9 Issues to Watch at UNGA 81
Why the Houthi Capture of Mocha Matters Far Beyond Yemen
Nuclear Disruption: The US-Saudi 123 Agreement and the Future of Nuclear Cooperation in the Middle East
The Nation Is Not Alone. We Need Reflexive Multilateralism
“No, History Begins Today”: Why Washington Could Not Reshape Pakistan’s Interests After 9/11
What if the US Had Made Peace With Iran After 9/11?
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.