Obama's Cairo Speech: A View from Tehran

Iran Review has posted this reaction to last Thursday's speech by President Obama in Cairo from Dr. Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh of the Tehran International Studies and Research Institute. The analysis expands on Golshanpazhooh's "window of hope" article that we posted last month: "The Obama speech is an undeniable turning point. But the most important part of the story is to put these words into action.

Obama's Address: A Point of View

As US President Barack Obama was preparing to deliver his address to the Muslim world in Cairo this week, the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei was almost simultaneously addressing a ceremony on the occasion of the late Imam Khomeini’s demise anniversary in Tehran.

"I say firmly that introducing change and transforming a new image would not be realized through speech and slogans. It rather requires action and making up for the numerous violations of rights of the Iranian nation and the regional nations,” said Ayatollah Khamenei in his address.

Referring to the not-too-distant experience of the people of the region, the Supreme Leader added: “The former US administration has drawn an ugly, violent and hated image from the US government because of its violent acts, military interventions, discriminations and forceful interventions and the Muslim nations hate the United States from the bottom of their hearts."

The same outlook was adopted by many regional media and studies centers in recent days with a different literature. It somehow showed the deeply rooted enthusiasm and expectation of the Muslim people of the region about change in the US policies. It also revealed how high the wall of mistrust between them and the US statesmen was.

Nonetheless, it cannot be claimed that Obama’s Cairo address was only a nice speech devoid of substance and goodwill. After I read the full text of his speech I had a feeling that these remarks could be motivational to every Muslim not because the address praised Islam but because it showed that after long years the US government has at least tried to remove its glasses of pessimism and unilateralism and look at the Muslim community and the Islamic faith “as they are”.

I personally enjoyed the text and applauded Obama for his points of view and manners when he says: “…America does not presume to know what is best for everyone…”; or when he takes a position against opposition of the Western societies with the kind of clothes a Muslim woman should wear: “We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”; or when he tries to recognize the right of my homeland to use peaceful nuclear energy: “And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty…”; or when he says: “In our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”; or when he admits: “And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.”; or when he cites words from the three Divine books (Quran, Talmud and Bible) and nicely repeats the message of peace.

In the meantime, there are also points in Obama’s address which are ambiguous and open to question by Muslims, particularly the people of the Middle East. The people of the Middle East hardly believe Obama’s words about their claim of goodwill in Iraq. No one can forget the history of 100 years of Western colonialism and oil plundering in the region as well as their support for monarchial, despotic and undemocratic rules by just hearing a few nice words.

In the opinion of Iranians, the successful US coup d’etat of 1953 in Iran cannot be compared to the hostage taking of the US diplomats in the early revolution, as implicitly stated by Obama. The latter was in fact the natural outcome of 26 years of tolerating a regime which came to power with the US backing while the former was a spontaneous event inspired by revolutionary sentiments.

Obama’s words regarding US financial and logistical support for Pakistan and Afghanistan were nice. But the people of the region cannot but ponder why the US has voiced support for despotic and unelected governments in Pakistan whenever its interests required and potentially produced hatred among those who have grounds for extremism? They also wonder why poppy cultivation and opium export have increased several folds and security has not improved that much in Afghanistan following the US occupation?

The second part of Obama’s remarks is devoted to the question of peace between Palestinians and Israel. As President Obama has admitted himself settlement of this problem will not be an easy task. However, it seems that the biggest hurdle in the way of accepting Washington’s goodwill and resolve in this respect is the presumption that is seen throughout his remarks in this section: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. But according to the literature of the region, we must go back a little bit to see whether it was basically the rights of the Israelis to settle in the lands we now call “occupied” and build more settlements there every day and make life difficult for the main Palestinian owners? If Obama in part of his statement explicitly says that the agony of the Palestinians cannot be ignored and admits that “they endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation”, would it be possible to overlook the term “occupation” in finding a solution for peace and simply bypass it?

Everyone knows it is very difficult to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but now that there is a will in the US administration to understand the positions of the two sides, it would be better to lay its foundations properly. I wish Obama could help Muslims what to do when some fail to recognize the power of a group coming to power in a democratic election? Have we really understood why Hamas was forced after victory in the January 2006 parliamentary elections in Palestine to shift its policy to that of a liberation struggle?

In the third part of his address, President Obama talked about the right of countries to access nuclear technology and about their responsibilities. Obama has tried in a fair way to understand “those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not…” And for the same reason he “strongly reaffirms America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

Will the people of the region witness a day not too far when Israel’s nuclear sites and armaments go under IAEA supervision and when Israel joined the NPT under US pressure? Wouldn’t it be more rational then to exert pressures on other countries to come clean in their nuclear programs?

In any event, the Obama speech is an undeniable turning point. But the most important part of the story is to put these words into action. If Obama fails to put these words into action he would be unable to create a change in the outlook and more importantly the “mentality” and “perception” of the people of the region towards the US. If this happens it would be a big disaster; a tragedy equal to disappointment and repeating the past feeling and bitter thought in the mind of most of the people of the region that “it is the same America and there is no difference between Bush and Obama; that their policy is the same policy of hegemony and unilateralism with the only difference that the new one has a more attractive look.”

Video: Iran-First or Palestine-First? A Turning Point Debate on CNN

Usually we don't feature panel discussions on political chat shows, especially when they have an "octo-wall" of speakers. Yesterday, however, there was a turn of debate on CNN's GPS which may be symbolic of the shift in US foreign policy.

This was a clash of "Iran-first" vs. "Palestine-first" in the US approach towards Israel. And Palestine-first won, 16 hands down.

The episode began when the Israeli historian and commentator Benny Morris put forth the case for focusing on a purported Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Then the twist: Morris' assertions were taken apart by Juan Cole, and with only one Israeli on the octo-wall of 7 different nationalities and perspectives, the notion that the issue of Palestine had to be set aside --- especially to threaten economic sanctions or even military action against Iran --- was roundly dismissed. Useful contributions from Hanan Ashrawi, Maziar Bahari, Saad Ibrahim, and Rami Khouri ensured that both the Palestine aspect and the wider aims of President Obama's Cairo speech replaced Tehran as the centre of attention:

Meanwhile, the Saudi Arabian (and US?) Proposal: Cut Aid to Israel

Perhaps the great unnoticed paradox of Barack Obama's Middle Eastern trip came before his Cairo speech, when he stopped in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has kept a low public profile over the post-Inauguration discussions on Israel and Palestine, yet here was the US President making it clear that the Saudi rulers still have a major part in the ongoing drama.

Even more intriguing, however, was the little-noticed aftermath.

One of the major strands for talks, the Arab Peace Initiative referred to by Obama in his Cairo speech, stems from proposals put forth by the Saudis in 2002. Riyadh's post-Cairo intervention, however, did not refer to this platform. Instead, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal proposed a more immediate plan: the US should use economic and military assistance. as leverage to get Israeli concessions. He explained, "If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people's lands, you bear some responsibility."

The Saudi message is simple: if there is to be a grand plan, there has to be a preamble with an Israeli concession. And to get that concession, it's a case of diplomacy walks, money talks.

In late February, Israeli officials were concerned that there could be a cut in US military aid to Israel, which had been set out in a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding promising that Israel would receive $30 billion over 10 years. In the second week of March, Washington assured the Israelis that there was no plan to reduce military assistance.

However, with the emergence of the Israeli settlements as a touchstone issue --- if there is to be an Israeli-Palestinian process, there has to be a freeze and possibly a partial rollback --- aid-as-pressure returns to the foreground. There are some signals such as the report on Israel Radio that “officials in Jerusalem [have] assessed that Israel will eventually have no other option but to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state”. However, the prospect remains that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from personal conviction or the political opposition within his Cabinet, will not shift significantly.

So what does the US do then? Less than a week after President Obama stopped by to see King Abdullah and Prince Saud, let's put it another way:

While Obama puts the Grand Plan A, is Saudi Arabia publicly proposing Washington's private, less-grand, but just-as-necessary Plan B against its Israeli ally?

if Netanyahu cannot convince its cabinet members and faces with strong opposition? Do you think that the Obama Administration can take Prince’s proposal serious and consider the threat of cutting aid to Israel as a leverage in face of the institutions of strong alliance between two countries constructed since 1967?

Palestine: Is Hamas Digging Away Its Political Ground?

The diplomatic fencing since President Obama's Cairo speech has been mainly between the US and Israel over the issues of Israeli settlements and a two-state solution. This is far from the only development, however.

While Washington and Tel Aviv manoeuvre, another often-violent intra-Palestinian dance is going on between Hamas and Fatah. Indeed, that conflict is so intense that one might ask if Hamas is undermining its international legimitacy and giving extra time to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he positions himself towards and against Palestine.

In Cairo, Obama said:

Violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

While Hamas gave a cautious welcome to engagement with the US, tension escalated in the West Bank and Gaza. A Damascus-based Hamas spokesman Talal Nasser called on Palestinians to fight the Palestinian Authority as though they were fighting the Israeli occupation. Moreover, Hamas security forces abducted several Fatah leaders and loyalists in the Gaza Strip overnight and killed one.

This was not just a one-sided shift, as Fatah has been upping the pressure on Hamas in the West Bank. Several members of Hamas' military wing, including two prominent leaders, were killed in fire-fights with Palestinian Authority forces in the last week. Yet Hamas's role in escalation of tension risks being seen as more emotional rather than rational, dragging its policy towards a dead end. The organisation can be portrayed as "extremist", rationalising a decision to exclude it from the peace process.

And so Israel's need for some political breathing space, perhaps ironically, is met not in Washington but in the streets of Palestine.

Saturday Video Funnies: How Fox News Saw Obama's Cairo Speech

Q: Jon Stewart "A provocative speech from the president of the United States, delivered in the heart of a Middle East capital. How will it play with the extremists?"

A: Fox News "These people...have a very unfavorable view of the United States....So why are we wooing them?"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Looking for Comity in the Muslim World
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Economic Crisis