Obama's new way

IN a reassertion of America's Middle East diplomacy, President Barack Obama's historic speech to the Muslim world from Cairo will seek to shift the strategic calculations of Islamic and Arab leaders.

Obama plans a foreign policy of high ambition in the Middle East precisely because the trends are so dire with the hope of a two-state solution having contracted so much.

"It starts with a sense of urgency," says Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, of Obama's regional game plan. "Where does the Middle East fit into President Obama's priorities? I asked this question to one of his closest advisers and he answered 'very high', saying (Obama) would like to see a breakthrough not within his first four years but within his first two years."

Interviewed this week at the Lowy Institute here, Indyk, the Australian-educated American who once worked at Parliament House and was at the heart of Bill Clinton's 1990s peacemaking efforts, says: "I think it is clear in President Obama's mind how he is going about this.

"There are now two narratives competing for the hearts and minds of the Arab world and Muslim world beyond. The narrative that comes out of Tehran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, is as follows: 'Our way works: violence, terrorism, defiance of the international community, threats to destroy Israel. This is the way to redeem Palestine.' You hear this all the time. (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad said it recently in a summit meeting with Syria's (President Bashar) al-Assad.

"The competing message is far less convincing these days: that by negotiation, reconciliation and compromise the Palestinian grievances can be better met and peace generated. That is America's message but it no longer resonates. Hamas is able to say to the Palestinians: 'Listen, through violence we got Israel to evacuate all the settlements in Gaza, and what did those guys get who were negotiating on your behalf with Israel for16 years? Only more settlements, so whose way works?' The challenge is to demonstrate they're wrong and we're right. That is very hard. But I believe what makes it now possible is that for the first time Arab leaders are in the same boat as Israel's leaders."

They have a common enemy: the Iranian campaign to dominate the region tied to its quest for a nuclear capability. For Indyk, "this fear can be used to cement a kind of virtual Arab-Israeli peacemaking". Obama is reaching out to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, the key Arab states in any regional diplomatic framework.

Indyk argues that if Iran goes nuclear then Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria will follow. This is one reason Obama says an Iranian nuclear capability would be a "game-changer". It guarantees a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with critical consequences for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

For Indyk, Obama is following the first lesson from Clinton's experience: the US must leverage its influence for peace. Without a breakthrough on a two-state solution, the outlook is more conflict and more openings for bad actors to exploit.

Indyk calls Obama's game plan "ambitious, complicated and sophisticated". He says: "The idea is that the best way to succeed is to work on three fronts simultaneously: try to move the Palestinian-Israeli process, try to exploit Syria's interest in peace with Israel and test whether the Iranians will negotiate curbs on their nuclear program while normalising relations between the US and Iran.

"The question is not whether President Obama makes this a priority. It is whether his making it a priority changes the calculations of Middle Eastern leaders so that one or more decide they want to be his partner.

"The Syrians would like to make peace with Israel. They've made this clear over the last few years. Not only would a Syria-Israel deal cut the conduit of Iran's influence in the Middle East heartland but it would make it easier for other Arab nations to engage withIsrael."

All roads lead directly to new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who, at present, won't come down from the Golan Heights, thereby ruling out any deal with Syria, and won't commit to a two-state solution, ruling out any deal with the Palestinians. Something has to give.

"There's a time-honoured tradition in Israeli politics," Indyk says. "(Menachem) Begin gave up the Sinai to keep the West Bank, (Ariel) Sharon gave up Gaza to keep his West Bank settlements, I can imagine Netanyahu calculating he could give up the Golan to avoid the territorial concessions inthe West Bank that would bring down hisGovernment.

"Israel's national security establishment sees the advantage of making peace with Syria because of the threat from Iran, even if it means giving up the Golan Heights. I think there's a pretty good chance we'll see a breakthrough between Israel and Syria before we see it between Israel and the Palestinians. But here's the rub: if you give the Syrians a sense you're running after them, the price goes up. It is another reason you have to move on three fronts."

On Iran, Indyk says: "Israeli doctrine is clear. It will not allow another nuclear power to emerge in the region. Every person who becomes prime minister in Israel takes on an obligation to ensure the survival of the Jewish commonwealth. From the perspective of the Prime Minister's office there's an existential threat to the survival of the state."

This means "it is more likely than not the Israelis will take military action" without a negotiated solution. Yet Indyk says a caveat remains: Israel's ties with the US. Obama has sent the signal; he opposes any Israeli action at this point with US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global economy in crisis. "Israel can't just act on its own," Indyk says.

In their recent meeting Obama reassured Netanyahu: the US won't just let Iran play out the clock. Obama nominates the end of the year as the time to assess whether Iran wants to negotiate. The truth, however, as Indyk concedes, is that "the US can live with a nuclear Iran, but it is much harder for Israel to do so".

Indyk expects Obama to apply serious pressure to Israel on the two-state solution and West Bank settlements. "I think Netanyahu now understands that Obama is not going to be a pussy cat, that Obama is dead set on what he wants, and I expect we will see Netanyahu adjust his position," Indyk says. "When the US President asserts the asymmetry in the relationship, then Israel becomes a small power that has to find a way to accommodate the demands of its great powerpatron."

Remember, Obama's new approach follows former president George W. Bush's comprehensive policy failure. Obama has logic and legitimacy on his side in seeking a new way. He recently asked a telling question: "It's not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness."

What is Obama's greatest asset? Indyk nominates "his unique personal narrative as the first African-American President who has a Muslim name, a Muslim father and grew up in a Muslim country, and who has an empathyboth for Arabs and Israelis that hecan articulate".

The first test of Obama's new public diplomacy comes with his Cairo speech that will seek to break through the destructive mindset that formed after 9/11.

"The whole Muslim world will be watching," Indyk says. Obama, surely, will seek a new partnership with the Muslim world based on shared obligations.