Fewer than 50 days into his Presidency, Barack Obama has begun to set a different framework for how America deals with the Middle East.  Rather than pursue an ideologically blinkered approach, the President and his team have taken steps to explore new opportunities throughout the region.  Ultimately, the broader grand strategy that the Administration chooses to pursue will depend on how the other actors in the region respond.  But there is no question that today America’s choices and flexibility in the region are far greater than they were only 50 days ago.

The most dramatic action came last week, when Obama announced the beginning of the end of American military involvement in Iraq, a step that not only aligns with American interests, but addresses one of the key grievances between the U.S. and the Muslim world during the past eight years.  But the administration’s policy shift in Iraq did not take place in a vacuum.  Rather, it flowed from an understanding that the Middle East’s toughest challenges, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Iraq, Syria, are not disparate ideological litmus tests, but interconnected problems that will respond to an approach that combines firmness, knowledge and respect.  The Obama administration has been setting the table for engaging Iran, by discarding the saber rattling of the Bush era, while simultaneously looking for new diplomatic avenues to pressure Iran – such as cooperation with Russia.  The administration has also begun revamping US relations with Syria, manifested not just in symbolic exchanges between high level Syrian representatives and State Department officials, including Secretary Clinton herself, but also with the announcement that senior representatives will travel to the country within the week.  And, out of recognition that a lasting an Arab-Israeli peace is critical to American interests in the region, President Obama immediately sent a clear message on the second day of his presidency by appointing George Mitchell as a Special Envoy.  Success in any of these areas is not guaranteed, but by pushing forward with a multi-pronged approach, the Obama administration has already created new opportunities, which will position the U.S. advantageously moving forward.  These efforts represent a total overhaul of the US’ outlook toward the Middle East, based on the idea that such immense challenges can never be addressed in isolation and must be based on pragmatic, principled and tough diplomacy instead of reckless ideology. 

Withdrawal from Iraq marks new era in US policy toward Middle East.  For 6 years, the U.S. substituted its Iraq policy for a broader strategy for the Middle East, harming both our interests and our relations with the Muslim world.  Obama signaled a new era in his Inaugural outreach to the broader Muslim world:  “[t]o the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” a remark that was widely praised in the Middle East.  In his address at Camp Lejeune, Obama announced to Iraqis a clear change in course: “You are a great nation, rooted in the cradle of civilization. You are joined together by enduring accomplishments, and a history that connects you as surely as the two rivers carved into your land…We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations.”  The President followed these words with announcement of specific steps to help address Iraq’s longstanding challenges, beginning with two reviews focused on internal politics and regional diplomacy.  According to the Washington Post, the President and his national security advisors “see military withdrawal from Iraq, and Baghdad's establishment as a sovereign regional player, as part of a broad and interconnected regional strategy being rolled out even as it is formulated.” Obama confirmed this in his speech: “The future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East, so we must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that advances Iraq’s security and the region’s.” [NSN, 1/06/09. NSN, 3/2/09. President Obama, 2/27/09. Washington Post, 2/27/09]

Through careful words and actions, the Obama administration has begun engaging Iran while also taking preliminary steps to build greater international consensus on Iran’s nuclear program.  The President began his outreach by making strong symbolic gestures, including his inaugural address, but most notably in his first Presidential interview on al-Arabiya.  When the interview turned to the subject of Iran, Obama demonstrated his respect for “the Iranian people” and the “Persian civilization,” emphasizing: “it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”  Others within the Obama administration have conducted similar outreach, most notably Special Representative Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who expressed that “Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan.”  The Iranian response to the Administration’s overtures has so far been mixed, with President Ahmadinejad expressing support for Obama’s idea of dialogue based on “mutual respect,” but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei openly rebuking the Administration for continuing the “crooked ways” of its predecessors.  That is why the Obama administration has augmented this rhetoric with actions meant to forge international consensus behind its Iran policy.  At a Security Conference in Munich, Vice-President Biden assured U.S. European partners of the administration’s desire to “engage,” “listen,” and “consult,” “promising to treat U.S. allies as equal partners” on all matters, including Iran.  And just this week, there have been reports of letters exchanged between President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, letters which indicate the Administration’s desire for cooperation from Moscow, including hints that it might cease insisting on missile defense in Europe “if Russia helps resolve the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.” [President Obama, Inaugural Speech, 1/20/09. President Obama, Al-Arabiya Interview, 1/27/09. NY Times, 2/15/09. Joseph Biden, 2/7/09. Washington Post, 2/08/09. Washington Post, 3/03/09. Washington Post, 3/05/09]

The Obama administration is ending years of a senseless policy of refusing to talk with Syria and exploring potential opportunities to peel them away from the Iranians and engage them more productively in the search for Middle East peace.  U.S. – Syria relations have long been strained, particularly since the Bush administration removed the U.S. Ambassador in 2005.  There are signs however, that the Obama administration plans to use dialogue to work toward a different relationship.  Reuters reports: “U.S. President Barack Obama has signaled he wants a dialogue with Syria that could further rehabilitate Damascus internationally.” Improved relations with Syria could confer other benefits as well: prying Syria away from Iranian influence and reducing their support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.  The Administration’s outreach to Syria started with an invitation from acting head of the Near East Affairs bureau Jeffrey Feltman to Syrian Ambassador Imad Mustafa to join him for a meeting at the State Department, and continued a few days later, at the Gaza reconstruction conference at Sharm el-Sheikh.  There, “US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem exchanged a few words during a rare brief encounter on Monday,” according to AFP.  Muallem described the interaction as “short but very pleasant, saying that he was “happy it happened.”  The Times elaborated on the encounter’s significance: “In the Middle East, where even the slightest gesture is closely scrutinised, the brief encounter was seen as a sign that Washington was prepared to mend fences with Syria, whose leader, Bashar Assad, was treated as a pariah by the Bush Administration.”  Shortly thereafter, Clinton announced that the Obama administration would “send two senior officials to Syria this weekend to begin discussions with the government,” an overture which “suggests how the Obama administration intends to tackle three interlocking challenges in the Middle East: the nuclear threat posed by Iran; long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria; and the grinding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians,” according to the New York Times.  [Reuters, 3/1/09. Reuters, 2/25/09. Times Online, 3/2/09. NY Times, 3/04/09]

Early steps demonstrate strong U.S. commitment to make Middle East peace a top priority. After years of downgrading the Middle East peace process, with the results being only a rise in conflict, the Obama Administration marked a change in course by moving on the President’s second day in office to appoint veteran negotiator Senator George Mitchell as Middle East envoy.  Obama gave Mitchell credibility at the highest level, announcing, “Now, understand that Sen. Mitchell is going to be fully empowered by me and fully empowered by Secretary Clinton…So when he speaks, he will be speaking for us.”  Within weeks, Mitchell had returned to the region, “part of ‘ongoing efforts’ to ‘actively and aggressively’ advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, American officials said.”  And in fact, there has been speculation that he may open an office in Jerusalem.  Moreover, this week, Clinton, in addition to representing the U.S. at the Gaza reconstruction conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, is traveling to Jerusalem and the West Bank, “as the Obama administration shows it is determined to pursue robust, sustained peacemaking efforts, after years of neglect and belated engagement on the part of the Bush administration.”  During the trip, Clinton expressed that “she believed ‘the inevitability of working toward a two state-solution is inescapable’ and the administration ‘will be vigorously engaged’ in trying to create a Palestinian state.”  [LA Times, 1/27/09. President Obama, 1/26/09. NY Times, 2/26/09. NY Times, 3/1/09. Washington Post, 3/03/09]

A car bomb exploded in a cattle market near Baghdad, killing at least 10. Meanwhile, 31 House Republican introduced a “Victory in Iraq” bill  to tout America’s “definable victory” there.

NATO will resume high-level contact with Russia, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deems a “fresh start.”

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir defies the ICC’s arrest warrant and expels foreign aid groups.

China outlines an ambitious stimulus plan.

China clamps down on Tibet as the fiftieth anniversary of the Tibetan uprising approaches next week.  The government also said they are ready to hold talks with Taiwan and work towards ending hostilities.

Secretary of State Clinton finds Iran an overarching issue in her Middle East trip.

Kyrgyzstan is willing to negotiate a new deal to allow U.S. troops to remain in the country, though the closing of Manas airbase remains final.

A spending bill sparks heated debate on Cuba policy in the Senate.

The Ukraine faces another Russian gas cutoff.

Police shot dead a Palestinian driver after a rampage through Jerusalem.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered the nationalization of some operations of Cargill, which is based in the U.S.

20 are killed in a gang fight/prison riot in the violent Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez.

The New York Times profiles Hamid Karzai’s brother, Mahmoud Karzai, and his business empire.

North Korea threatens the safety of South Korean civilian planes flying near its airspace.

Joe Klein examines the Afghanistan problem and wonders whether we can avoid a quagmire there.

Matt Duss chronicles the Progressive leadership on Afghanistan in the Guardian, saying the left is redrawing the boundaries of America's national security debate.

Rosa Brooks tries to find the logic behind the recently-released Bush administration OLC memos.

Garry Kasparov says the U.S. should be wary of doing deals with Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

General Tony McPeak and Kurt Bassuener advocate a no-fly zone for Darfur.

George Will says Congress should seek a more active role in foreign policy.