Obama has fashioned himself a honeymoon, but it's back-to-work time, warns Muqtedar Khan* That US President Barack Obama has changed the character of the discourse towards the Muslim world is now old news. He conjures themes of reconciliation and mutual respect and eschews discussions of hate and fear. He talks of dialogue and diplomacy and avoids threats. This has been noted and rewarded. He is easily the most popular leader in the Muslim world and anti-Americanism has experienced a palpable decline since his election. While the fear that the US may invade another Muslim country has receded there is still anger and resentment at the US for its military operations in Iraq and AfPak and its support for Israel. Intellectuals and politicians do recognise that Obama by using a new language has ignited hope that US- Muslim relations will change. But there is lingering scepticism. There are those who say, "Perhaps the packaging has changed but the contents remain the same." Obama, however, has gone beyond changing the language of US foreign policy; he has also changed its posture towards the Muslim world. Here are two examples. Obama and his team have repeatedly insisted the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not helpful to the peace process and must be halted. This is not a change in policy; this was US policy all along. The only change is that a US administration is willing to assert this even in the face of a public disagreement with the Israeli government. A more significant change in posture underpins President Obama's approach towards Iran. He insists that the US will leave no diplomatic stone unturned in an effort to persuade Iran to abandon its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The recent decision to accept Iran's invitation for direct talks even after it refused to discuss its nuclear programme speaks volumes about America's new posture towards Iran. Most analysts in the Muslim world are not giving Obama due credit for the changes he has brought to American foreign policy towards the Muslim world. They acknowledge that he speaks differently but they are still waiting to see if he acts differently. These sceptics must realise that both language and posture in foreign policy cannot be altered without significant adjustments. The reason why Obama is able to speak in a different language and adopt a different posture is primarily because he has a different vision of America's presence on the world stage. Yes, he wants America to be secure, preeminent and influential globally, but unlike his predecessor he wishes to secure these goals by rebuilding the culture of multilateralism, restoring faith in American diplomacy and deploying respect rather than arrogance as a medium of international exchange. He wants America to work in concert with other nations in pursuit of common goals and not bully them to advance self-interests at the expense of others. Nevertheless, there is demand for action both at home and abroad; especially against states that are defying the US and refusing to comply with its demands. There is a strong constituency in the US and Europe that feels that Iran is getting closer to a nuclear weapon and every delay helps it in its relentless pursuit. They feel that Iran is going to use dialogue as a ploy to buy time. This constituency feels that unless the US acts soon either Iran will go nuclear or Israel will take matters in its own hands and attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Either scenario will lead to the destabilisation of the Middle East and, according to most analysts, a spurt in radicalism and terrorism. Iran is not the only state in the Middle East defying the US. Israel too has for months refused to comply with US demands to stop building Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Israel's refusal has become a major impediment to the peace process since the Palestinians feel that settlements are altering facts on the ground. Arab governments share Israeli and US concerns about Iranian nuclear ambitions, but are waiting to see how the US deals with Israeli defiance. They are demanding action in the first place against Israel; either Israel stops or the US must make it stop. If the US punishes one defiance and rewards the other, the hypocrisy may escape observation in the US but in the Middle East it will signal the return of the Bush-Cheney America -- hypocritical, unreliable and untrustworthy. The gains made by Obama's eloquence and positive overtures towards the Muslim world will be lost. The point is simple: talk is good and good talk is necessary and helpful, but ultimately what matters is action. * The writer is director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
