My Analysis: Obama's Middle East Speech

Today, President Obama gave his much anticipated speech about the quickly changing nature of the Middle East.  Here it is:

If you want to read a transcript of the speech, click here.

I expected much out of the speech (as anyone should from their leader) but find myself with mixed feelings.

The President does well in pointing out recent positive development that are crucial to the region:

1. In Iraq, "We've removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there."
2. "In Afghanistan, we've broken the Taliban's momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead."
3. "We have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden."

He continues by telling us the obvious:

1. Bin Laden is evil.
2. How the Mideast uprisings began.
3. People are fighting for their rights in the region.

The President makes a point that he has made before:

"The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism."

On this point I take issue. Yes, colonialism has ended for some time, but not foreign power intervention and influence in the region. He is right to say that we can't keep blaming others and our tribalism, religion, and sects have all doused the fire with fuel but U.S. and European intervention didn't cease politically, socially, economically, financially or militarily. At some point, we must stop blaming others, of course, just as soon as negative material involvement ends from "the West."

Next he lays out the question at hand; as the narrative rapidly changes:

"The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds."

 and concludes:

"--a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world."

Of course, this is just an eloquent way of saying: It is against U.S. interests to stay with the status quo; something I've preached about since it all began! It is also evident that repressive dictatorships and oppressive king only generate a temporary illusion of stability.

I'm glad that the president also pointed out that the work in Egypt and Tunisia isn't complete. With the short time spans (something even I am guilty of), many people tend to think that the democratization of those two nations is complete. 

After reiterating his stance to support intervention in Libya, Obama establishes that Qaddafi will leave Libya either by force or through a deal that would have him willingly leave. Obama describes the opposition by calling it a "legitimate and credible Interim Council" yet the administration refused to endorse the rebels as the recognized government of Libya. 

I was very glad to hear Obama recognize the repressive actions of the governments of Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. The speech follows the U.S.'s strongest sanctions against the Syrian regime. The government's slow reaction to the 1000 deaths comes as a bit of a surprise to me. One would assume with its opposition to Syria's funding of organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine that the administration would move quickly to support the protests of the Syrians to remove this leader, for the chance of another one. 

Of course, the issue is more complex than that; Syria maintains a peaceful border for Israel and any replacement may choose to change things (a claim also made in Egypt; we have yet to see the extent of those results). After taking all this into consideration, the President lays out his -- strongest yet- message which can be best summarized with this sentence:

"President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. "

So far, it seems that President Bashar Al Assad is taking the route his father took decades ago by massacring his own people.  I highly recommend "liking" this Facebook page: The Syrian Days of Rage. The activists post content several times a day with very graphic video and images. No other outlet I know shows such direct video of the events on the ground. 

From Syria, the president moves to Iran by highlighting Iranian aid to the Syrian regime in suppressing protesters. This is similar in style to how Iran suppressed its own political protests years ago. This is an obvious move by the President to channel attention to Iran and its suppressive practices. Over the past months, it is obvious that the governments takes any chance it can to point out Iran's oppression (rightfully so) but it doesn't do so out of the kindness of its heart, rather, it wishes protests would be re-ignited to de-stabilized its regional nemesis. 

I'm glad to see Obama's public statement that the President of Yemen should sign the agreement and stop delay, a move I believe falls into what I've written about previously: the government should use whatever resources it has with the weight of its influence to help the protesters create a better government. 

On Bahrain, two paragraphs were dedicated, which seems to fall in line with the typical attention span of the government toward the widespread crackdown on Bahrainis by the suppressive dictatorship. Al Jazeera has an entire series dedicated to coverage of all the protests from Tunisia to Yemen to Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and more. It seems to be the only organization to detail the widespread crackdown of the Bahraini government. See here. They've covered mass allegations of torture, the governments crackdown on protesting football players, medical professionals, students, and religious centers. 

Of course, I will always support the President's call for the enforcement of universal rights, because morality is, well, universal. The president presses on:

" The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential." 

Soon afterwards, Obama details a plan to invest in Egypt and Tunisia to help alleviate the people and their grievances. 

Finally, the last issue addressed is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that has been going on for more than 60 years. I like the President's characterization of Israeli troops in the West Bank as an occupation (because that is what it is). He continues with rigid but clear language:

"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure."

This is certainly true, as even Hamas and other Islamist organizations must be blood-drunk or simply deranged to think that Israel will ever end or cease to exist in the manner they want it to.  He goes on to denounce the effort by the Palestinian Authority to gain recognition of a Palestinian state. Here I strongly disagree as I've stated by a previous blog post titled "The Wiser Palestinian Fight." This seems odd despite the president's support of a Palestinian nation within the 1967 borders (give and take some land swaps).  I believe that with the inevitable recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinians enter the negotiations not as leaders of a land, but leaders of a nation; a nation that is being illegally occupied by foreign troops. It helps make Israel look worse, and Palestinians better. It doesn't add chips to play at the table, but it helps build legitimacy for a people that are far too often neglected. 

On Israel, the President clarifies:

"...we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."

 Iran is singled out for criticism as is Sudan, Egypt, Libya, and any other nation that commits horrible actions so why not Israel? If a nation isn't criticized in international forums, where should it be? All nations should be criticized on all levels.

The President, as all previous presidents, establishes that with a two state solution: "Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people." Of course, I'm completely opposed to a "Jewish State" because of my opposition to any religiously based government; a Jewish one included. His statement also neglects the fact that Palestinians can be Jewish, and Israels can be Muslims and Christians. 

All-in-all, the speech contradicts itself at several points, but it certainly makes some good ones. If a strong policy follows suit, I can find myself in support of it, with just a few changes here and there namely the following:

1. Support of the recognition of a Palestinian State in the UN, regardless of the situation of negotiations. 
2. Introduce UN sanctions against the Syrian government to take stronger action to stop the killing.
3. More strongly move to push Saleh to sign the agreement. 
4. Push for the withdrawal of Saudi troops from Bahrain and for government reform in Bahrain. 
5. Push for economic development (not oil related) to the entire region. 

What do you think of his speech? the introduced actions? My suggestions? and more~!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!