At an unusually long press conference at the White House on 15 July, US President Barack Obama was eager to explain his unequivocal support for the Iranian nuclear deal. The deal has been instrumental in boosting his policy on the Middle East, which for the past few years has been marked by unprecedented chaos and turbulence. Obama seems to be convinced that with this deal, as a closure to his presidency, he has written history and cemented his long-sought legacy. Reaching a nuclear deal with Iran is undoubtedly a major pillar of this administration's achievements in the region. In line with his famed pragmatism and moderation, Obama has no doubt built his legacy in the region with the minimum of risks and the full support of world powers. It is because of this international support, in addition to circumventing the potential loss of his credibility, that Obama had no hesitation to threaten Congress with a presidential veto, should they vote against the deal. President Obama is standing firm against a Republican-controlled Congress that is ready at to pull the rug from under his feet. But President Obama and his administration do not seem prepared to take additional risks in the region. When asked in the press conference what kind of Middle East he wants to leave for his successor, Obama did not hesitate to draw a rosy picture. Linking it to the Iranian deal, his handover for the Middle East consists of the following: The US is on track to defeat the Islamic State (IS) group, a start-up process to resolve the civil war in Syria, a return of stability in Iraq, and a strengthened security partnership in the region. It is remarkable that the president did not even refer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as if it has become irrelevant. Obama makes it clear that it is not the job of the US president to solve the problems in the Middle East. However, clinching a deal with Iran that will possibly allow it to re-integrate into the community of nations does not absolve the Obama administration from its responsibility with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. When Obama was first hailed in the region, the administration's prime aim was to rehabilitate the US's image in the Middle East. It was evident at the time that his administration was seeking a new trajectory, with a two-fold task. First, to contain the damage done by his predecessor's policies; second, to design a new roadmap to face the challenges caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no doubt that the Obama administration has made a noticeable difference, as far as Iran is concerned. From the outset, Obama did not discard the possibility of talking to Iran to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons. He believes that his 2009 policy of mobilising a strong coalition agreeing to impose sanctions on Iran was instrumental in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. It was economic sanctions rather than the threat of using force that created the potential to resolve differences over Iran's nuclear programme. Obama is convinced that a nuclear deal with Iran will be a prelude to the gradual easing of hostilities between the two countries, which is important to the region as a whole. Reaching a mutually beneficial deal on the Iranian nuclear dispute is imperative to facilitating a new strategy that is beneficial to the future of the US in confronting the new terrorist enemy, from Al-Qaeda to the Taliban to the Islamic State. There is no doubt that Iran is a regional geopolitical power that must be taken into account if the international community in general, and the US in particular, are sincere about eradicating terrorism and fighting extremist Islam. Meanwhile, Iran will need to engage in peaceful relations with its regional partners to promote stability, focus on development and avoid supporting armed groups in various countries. It is true that with little time left in office and a Republican Congress, the US administration has to make tough choices. Paving the way for a final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and pressuring Israel to engage in serious discussions cannot be brushed aside, as if it's of no interest to a US president. Total neglect of this conflict will relegate all potential US successes to the backburner. US policy in the Middle East reflects a blend of policies that sometimes border on the incongruous. At some point the administration very seriously sought a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at the time when Obama intervened personally and condemned Israeli settlements and occupation policies. Then the administration backtracked because of Netanyahu's unyielding policies. The US State Department has occasionally tried using some “arm twisting” but it has had little success, if any. At this point in time, peace has never been further away. It is unquestionable that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the area where the current US administration appears to have made the least progress. Presented, at some point, as the most plausible and pragmatic approach, the two-state option no longer holds as a result of Netanyahu's hardcore rejectionism. The poor personal chemistry between him and Obama has handicapped the US president and has led him to take a course contrary to US vested interests in the region. Why can't the Obama administration, so fond of negotiations, succeed in bringing the two parties again to the negotiating table? Is there any other option? Current conditions, with Iran's apparent readiness to change course, may be more enabling. However, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues. The ongoing and persistent settlement issue contravenes all international agreements and UN resolutions; Hamas weakened, the military option void and the growing menaces from Islamists and their terrorist acts in the world persist. All this should push the parties back to the negotiating table with a new disposition for settlement, and help Obama make his real mark in history. The conditions seem to be favourable for a new initiative. But such an initiative cannot materialise if Obama does not attend to the matter personally. If the US administration is keen to finalise a fair deal, Obama will have to move forward energetically and avoid turning a blind eye to the conflict. To change the US image in the region, Obama will have to take the bull by the horns and look for a durable solution of the Middle East conflict. Contrary to the belief of the US administration, the deal with Iran has not assuaged the situation in the Middle East, which remains highly volatile. A solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will have a positive impact on the US position in the region, take the wind out of extremists' sails and lead to more stability. Israel will not make concessions to the Palestinians in the absence of powerful US pressure. It is high time to work hard to settle the question of Palestine and demonstrate by actual deeds that the US is honestly seeking to promote a just peace and development in the region. It was Obama's pragmatism and reading of US interests that pressed the US administration to negotiate the deal with Iran. It is a misreading of US interests that is leading the same administration to neglect the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This does not augur well for Obama's war on terrorism in the region, or for a smooth handover to his successor. The unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict will only increase instability in the region and beyond. Obama has much at stake: he cannot simply opt for a complacent, no-risk attitude for his remaining time in office. The writer is a professor of practice and director of the Prince Al-Waleed Centre for American Studies and Research at the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the American University in Cairo.
