You are here:   Arseniy Yatsenyuk > As America Retreats, the World Goes to Hell
 
Nonetheless, in the same speech, Obama stepped back from America's role as guarantor of democratic values, and at the same time plunged the country into strategic incoherence. "America is not the world's policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act . . . That's what makes us exceptional." While any strategy certainly requires the strategist to pick and choose his battles carefully rather than attempting to "right every wrong", there should be a more active guiding principle than the reductive idea of "modest effort and risk".

Obama's Middle Eastern policy was announced in an idealistic flurry in his 2009 Cairo speech. He pursued a desire to work with what he perceived to be moderate Islamist groups like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey's Justice and Development party (AKP) to bring democracy to the region and reset America's relations with the Muslim world. At the same time, Obama has sought to manage withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, halt Iranian nuclear proliferation and pursue the Arab-Israeli peace process.

It has become hard to ascertain what Obama views as American interests in the region. In Egypt, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood as it deposed America's long-term ally, Hosni Mubarak. Since the Muslim Brotherhood has in turn been deposed by a military coup, Obama is withholding military aid, turning de facto leader General Abdel Fattah Sisi towards Russian economic and military support and alienating Egyptian secularists. In Libya, Obama hesitated when rebels launched attacks against Muammar Gaddafi, then stepped in to provide support to those rebels, whose response was to murder the American ambassador in Benghazi. In Syria, he gave guns to the al-Qaeda-aligned insurgency and then withdrew from his self-imposed "red line" on the use of chemical weaponry, letting Russia step into the breach. Throughout, Obama has never made clear what American interests were at stake and how his policies supported those interests.

The focus of Obama's Iran policy has narrowed so substantially that the only apparent goal is nuclear non-proliferation. At the point where the Joint Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme was agreed in November 2013, Iran's economy was close to collapse. Obama's agreement transformed the regime's fortunes by reopening banking channels, refreshing the war chests of Hizbollah and Hamas, in return for extracting very few concessions. Not only has President Rouhani failed to deliver domestic reform but in a comparatively short period of time Iran has recommenced its destabilising activities throughout the region. Iran has wasted no time in courting a new ally, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself deeply involved in sectarian conflict in his own country. Iraq and Iran are co-operating on oil-pricing strategy in a move targeted at Saudi Arabia and Opec stability, and in addition it appears that Iran is also flouting UN embargos by selling weaponry to the Iraqi government. Iran's freedom has allowed it to mount conventional military operations such as its intervention on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, opening an axis between Iran, Syria and Russia. This will have knock-on effects as America tries to disengage from Afghanistan. The northern distribution network is the only route out of Afghanistan which completely bypasses Pakistan. At the heart of the route is Russian-controlled territory, a fact Putin is sure to exploit during negotiations over Ukraine.
 
America's relationship with the rest of the Middle East is equally compromised. Late last year Saudi Arabia declined its long-coveted place on the UN Security Council. The message of anger and alienation was aimed squarely at Barack Obama. The cumulative effect of the Pivot to Asia and Obama's Middle East policy was that the Saudis felt abandoned and vulnerable, a feeling exacerbated by the apparent emergence of American energy independence and the potential creation of a regional Shia superpower in Iran.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Jack Jones
April 13th, 2014
8:04 PM
It seems that Alexander Woolfson is the 'Grand Old Party' rep on Standpoint Mag!! 'Come on Obama Boy, get Putin' a typical soundbyte of the Republican Party. And why not go into Syria, and bash Iran's nuclear aspirations (to do Israel's dirty work)? And when Obamaa has finished his term, they got Obama to blame "for another fine mess he's got us into"! While here in Europe all we have had so far is rhetoric and hot air from the likes of William Hague. And Germany, the economic leader of Western Europe, decides to take a more cautious approach. One question to Alexander: WHERE IS OBAMA GOING TO GET THE FUNDS TO OPEN ANOTHER WAR FRONT - AFTER IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN? And the US cannot afford to have a decent health care for it's own citizens (some thing the EU and UK take for granted) - Answer please, Mr Woolfson or Editor of Standpoint

Hubris
April 3rd, 2014
1:04 PM
Thank you for your polemic.Sounds like it was written by the Rumsfields of the world. You very well may be right but you haven't looked at the big picture. First of all when you refer to Obama, you are referring also to the foreign service and military industrial complex of the US. Is it possible they have game played Putin,knowing hey were encroaching on his flank with promises to potentially accept Ukraine into the EU and eventually NATO.Is it possible when Putin realized this, he installed his own de facto government,the West's best option being we can have western Ukraine which is better than no Ukraine at all. If so, the west has succeeded in further land grabs of the former Soviet Union. In addition, is it possible the West has paralyzed Western Investment in Russia to the degree it will add to the debilitation of the Russian economy which has no positive outcomes for Putin accept to adopt the nationalistic fervor of all despots prior to their potential fall from power. When you make an argument,it makes sense to offer the other side's reasoning,then refute it as opposed to just writing this polemic.

hegel`s advocate
March 31st, 2014
2:03 AM
`The Society of the Spectacle` by situationist Guy Debord is now available in a new annotated english translation by Ken Knab at Bureau of Public Secrets website. The leaders of the world will lead it into disasters and catastrophic horrors-the how and why it`s getting worse accurately defined ? First published in 1968 along with Raoul Vaneigem`s `The Revolution of Everyday Life` (pre-internet!) , which is also now available in a new English translation by Donald Nicholson Smith,the radical potential and dangers for the world are concisely explained. Today Zizek claims these leaders and so-called experts have lost all decisional capability. But not so in Uruguay! The decisional capability of its people and leaders surely making it the first 21st century civilisation voted into existence and a role model for other countries. Putin is Russia`s Thatcher. His own cronies could get rid of him soon. He rents himself out to them as a personality cult on an industrial scale. For people with no personality of their own he is their personality infantilising them and making them talk childish nonsense about the West attacking their fort (Alamo fantasy) The giant inflatable duck that was the Sochi Olympics being a prelude to his political Disneyfication of Russia as a theme park of 20th century market Leninism. Nobody will want to `buy into` it culturally . America hasn`t retreated or not done enough. It welcomed Pussy Riot artists in New York! Let`s see Moscow welcome young artist Akiane Kramarik from Idaho,USA.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.