Middle East Strategy at Harvard

From Charles Hill

If you put yourself in the position of, say, the political counsellor of the British Embassy in Washington and you were required to send in a pre-Obama-in-Cairo speech analysis, you could draw upon a close analysis of Obama’s words and those of his Middle East team over the past ten days to say something like this:

1. The first task that Obama has set for himself is to “regain the trust” of the Muslim world. That requires deeply felt expressions of respect, an attitude of humbleness, with apologies for the wrongdoings and arrogance of the president’s predecessors, and “listening.” This phase has largely been completed. The Arab regimes in particular are satisfied with this new U.S. approach, especially because it has legitimated the propaganda they have produced for their own people about American iniquities over the decades.
2. In addition, President Obama has enshrined the phrase “The Muslim World” in American foreign policy. Contrary to the late Professor Edward Said, who never let an opportunity slip by to denounce any American official who would use such a reductionist phrase to apply to such a multi-various reality as Islam, President Obama has re-defined the term so as to convey an understanding that The Muslim World (the Umma) is an alternative to the international state system. This has put in place the foundation for a new relationship of trust between these two, mutually respectful world systems.
3. Next, of course, is to place the United States in a position of “even-handedness” which so many friends of peace in the region—Europeans, American editorialists, UN officials, professors, etc.—have called for over these many years. In this regard, one anomaly stands out: Jewish settlements. The United States will make an absolute settlements freeze the unconditional requirement for future good relations between Washington and “Tel Aviv.” And this of course will cement the new U.S. achievement of mutual trust between The Muslim World and that other international order led by the United States.
4. On the basis of this, the United States can move next to address, diplomatically and without senseless threats or harsh language, the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The new level of mutuality naturally will dictate that all parties in the Middle East adhere to the same goal, which the United States at a later stage will reveal to be universal agreement to turn the region into a “Nuclear Weapons Free Zone” such as that established decades ago for Latin America by the Treaty of Tlatelolco. The first step in this achievement will be Israel’s declaration of its possession of nuclear weapons and its willingness to have them inspected and destroyed by the IAEA.
5. With such positive momentum well underway, the United States may confidently turn to the final steps to end the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This will take the form of the Arab regimes and Iran prevailing upon Hezbollah and Hamas to turn themselves from non-state, anti-state actors into centrally significant participants in their respective states of Lebanon and Palestine. Negotiations between Palestine and Israel will then be relatively easy to wrap up in a short period of time, probably before the end of President Obama’s first term in office.