A common thread throughout Obama’s responses has been his belief that the U.S. image across the region is so toxic that it could undermine the change it seeks by embracing it too closely.

Prudence means deference to actors close to the scene.

“In Egypt, Obama deferred to local protesters; in Libya, he allowed France and England to drive the international debate toward military intervention—and only publicly joined them once the Arab League had signed on. By stepping back, Obama has effectively denied the region’s autocrats the opportunity to discredit indigenous demands for change as a U.S. plot.”

The downside of caution: “Delay, mixed messages, and his unilateral renunciation of the weapon of ringing rhetorical inspiration,” says Brownstein. “There’s been no Kennedyesque ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ moment for Obama.”

Which may also be a good thing. Brownstein is referring to a famous speech JFK made in Germany in June 1963 –in which he proclaimed in German, “I am a Berliner too.” As the Western half of the city resisted the Soviet Union’s efforts to impose a blockade, JFK expressed his simple human solidarity. Words worked because they spoke to a stalemate in the world’s thinking and defined an alternative, as only words could.

The democratization of the Arab world is the antithesis of mental stasis, an almost physical transformation in popular thinking about political participation whose ultimate political forms are just beginning to take shape. Eloquence from Washington at this moment might be formative. It was equally likely to be received as empty or arrogant. To the extent, Obama could wax idealistic, he would be called hypocritical. Words might be inspiring. They might be premature. They might be meaningless. Obama’s reticence is a sign of respect.

Which is not to say that presidential eloquence might not help some time soon

If and when Egypt holds elections this August, the reality of the country’s transition to democracy and its implications for peace in Israel/Palestine, will require U.S. response. Obama will have to confront the stalemate of the Israeli occupation and Palestinian resistance,  the irrelevance of  the two-state diplomatic dance, and the ugly reality of a wall of Occupation built to enforce racial and religious differences.

The opportunity for eloquence is obvious. Obama could go back to Cairo next fall or next year and say to the Israelis, a la Reagan to Soviets in 1987, “Tear this wall down.” But the White House staff will worry about the losing the Jewish base, while the National Security Council will counsel against setting expectations too high. Behind the scenes, AIPAC will sponsor Congressional resolutions to condemn the idea, duly approved by large congressional majorities, and the Obama’ 2012 reelection campaign’s fundraising goals will suffer. The Sunday morning experts will caution against pandering to the liberal base and the Arab Street. The birthers and loonier neoconservatives will say the very idea is proof the man is a closet Muslim.In short, Obama could pull a JFK or Reagan but only at the price of crossing the combined forces of the  Israel lobby and the right-wing noise machine, just in time for Election Day 2012. There seems slight chance of that.

Our chief executive seems most  likely to do like Ike: manage the status quo with mostly muted commentary.  Is that such a bad example? Eisenhower authored one of the most effective public rebukes of Israel ever to emanate from the White House. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Eisenhower declined to participate in the Anglo-French-Israeli effort to snatch the Suez Canal from Egypt’s nationalist president Gamal Nasser. Such a nakedly colonialist venture did not deserve U.S. support, and it failed. Eisenhower did not make a speech. He waited for everybody to exhaust themselves and then he made a decision–and made it stick. Sometimes that’s better.

we can say that the White House was successful in changing the story of their midterm defeat, but the success was temporary.  The world still writes about the President much more positively than negatively, and the President received better coverage in our biggest rivals’ blogs than in their mainstream media sources.

What this snapshot of Obama’s recent travels omits is the larger picture, including the Middle East where Obama’s expensive kowtowing to Israeli demands ($33 milion a day) has ended the honeymooon of his Cairo speech, even in counties, , such Jordan and Qatar, where media outlets are controlled by pro-American regimes.

With police investigations already underway in Australia, Ireland, and Germany, the Obama administration is going to deal with this. WashPost and NYT are still playing the story inside, appropriate  in light of the fact that there has been no official U.S. reaction, but that’s not going to last long.

For the Obama administration, this is where the rhetoric of the president’s Cairo address meets the realities of Middle East decisionmaking. Of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, and of course the U.S. assassinates al-Qaeda leaders every day. But the leaders and the publics of Arab countries (like the United Arab Emirates, where the hit took place) that are open to peace with Israel (and some of whom want U.S. help to deter Iran) are not going to be satisfied by the talking points that go over well in Washington and on cable TV.

The pro-American autocracies in the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) are especially helped by Israeli tactics. Vulnerable to accusations of being soft on Israel, they will posture about not allowing Israeli intelligence to operate on Arab soil with impunity. Democratic forces in the Arab world are undermined by Israeli’s assertion of its right to attack its foes anywhere. By enabling undemocratic Arab regimes to pander to public opinion without actually sharing power, Israeli actions actually force Obama to subordinate his goal of reaching out to the Muslim world to his consistent defense of Israel.

That’s fine with Israeli public opinion and it will probably go over well in the United States where cultural sympathies for the Jewish state run deep. But Jewish Israelis comprise less than 3 percent of the public in the Middle East. To the vast majority of the democratically inclined people in the Middle East, Obama will be seen as indulging the lawlessness that he denounces when Arabs engage in it.

….last year, there were 44 drone attacks, killing only five key Al Qaeda targets but the civilian casualties exceeded 700 Pakistanis. Passionate appeals have been made to all the visitors from the US – Congressmen, officials, military brass and others  that these attacks must stop. Pakistan is absolutely critical for US strategy in the region and its war against terror is solely dependent on Pakistanis’ cooperation. Pakistan must spell out to the Obama Administration that any more cooperation with the US would be subject to US meeting Pakistanis’ concerns.

There’s no evidence that is going to happen. From the point of view of U.S. policymakers, this isn’t a dilemma. In Washington, the answer is equally obvious, though diametrically opposed, to Pakistan’s: the battlefield advantages outweigh the political costs. In the short run, that is surely true. In the long run, it depends on ignoring Pakistani democracy.

Rafik Hariri, Lebanese businessman and political leader, slain in 2005. (Wapedia)

The politics of assassination are a more decisive factor than ever in Middle East politics.

This week thousands commemorated the fifth anniversary of the death of  Lebanese billionaire Rafik Hariri who was killed in a huge bomb blast in Beirut on February 13th, 2005. But the United Nations investigation of the crime has since stalled and the feeling that politics is trumping justice is hard to avoid. Hariri’s assassination gave rise to Lebanon’s so-called March 14th Cedar Revolution which brought Syria’s foes to power. Now the demographic and political realities of Lebanon have thwarted the movement and created a new status quo. Hariri’s son, Saad, who followed his father into politics, is calling for reconciliation with the government of Syria, the prime (but not the only) suspect in his father’s murder. As al Jazeera noted:

Re-emerging Syrian influence, the persistence of Hezbollah’s role and internal divisions have all dealt steady blows to the alliance that was brought together by opposition to Damascus.

Is justice possible?

Syria was immediately suspected  in Hariri’s mudrder because of the sheer size and sophistication of the ambush which destroyed Hariri’s motorcade and killed two dozen people. Only an organization with sophisticated planning and weaponry capabilities could have mounted such an attack.  Syria, whose military forces then occupied the country and dominated its political system, had the most reason to fear the Saudi-backed businessman, who was planning to enter politics with the goal of ending the Syrian occupation. Like its neighbors Israel, Syria also has a history of resorting to assassination to protect its interests. The backlash against Syria after the assassination empowered the pro-Western March 14 movement forced Damascus to withdraw its forces.

The initial findings of a special United Nations tribunal lent credence to the suspicions, and four pro-Syrian Lebanese general were detained in connection with the case. But the first prosecutor left the case  and the suspects have been released. In a piece for the New York Times yesterday, Michael Young, a pro-Western columnist for the Beirut Daily Star, blames the second U.N investigator, and all but recommends abandoning the probe rather than let it drag on. His frustration is understandable but his conclusion seems premature, as the investigation continues and new information has continued to emerge.

In a summary of the case yesterday, LeMonde (in French) reported that while decisive proof is lacking, the U.N. investigators have developed evidence implicating Hezbollah, the political/party militia which represents the country’s Shiite majority. The investigators have traced a network of cell phone used by the bombers to Hezbollah officials, Le Monde said.

The alleged role of Hezbollah, first reported by the German newsweekly Speigel Online, last year, does not preclude a Syrian role, as the Hezbollah has long allied itself with Syria. Hezbollah rejects the allegation. Yesterday, the group’s news site, Al Manar, reported President Obama called for justice in the Hariri case in straightfoward terms. Hezbollah is clearly heartened by Saad Hariri’s opening to Syria and his criticism of  Israel.

In short, Rafik Hariri’s rivals for power have benefited from his violent departure and his assailants elude justice.

“As time went by, it became clear that Netanyahu was running circles around Obama. As soon as Netanyahu sniffed the storm that was brewing in Obama’s speech at Cairo University, he took action. Within weeks, Netanyahu had mobilised Jewish pressure groups in America in an effort aiming to obstruct all attempts to change the course of US policy in the Middle East. Netanyahu’s success was as spectacular as it was immediate. Not only did he make Obama eat his words on the freeze of all settlement activities, he also stopped all efforts by the American president to start dialogue with Iran and Hamas.”

“… if the starting point for fighting terror is only the terror attacks themselves and the societies from which they emanate, without a fuller acknowledgment of the wider cycle of political violence that also includes sustained aggressive policies by the US, the United Kingdom, Israel, Arab governments and others in the region, we will only perpetuate the current insanity mentioned earlier: the simultaneous proliferation of terrorism, American armed forces, Israeli assassinations, and other elements of the full cycle of political violence in the Arab-Asian region.
”