In focus: Doing it the Obama way The policy overall appears the same, just the means differing. This is what Obama portends in the post-Bush era, writes Galal Nassar That the Obama administration is taking a fresh approach to Middle East problems, including Iraq and Iran, is definitely true. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Iraq and Iran are fairly interlinked. That's why Bush couldn't attack Iran while his army was deployed next door. As I said in previous articles, it was the American occupation of Iraq that allowed pro-Iranian parties to have a tight grip over government institutions in that country. With sectarian and ethnic divisions on the rise, the Iranians found many ropes to pull, while the Americans had fewer and fewer options. Unlike many, I wasn't surprised that Bush refrained from attacking Iran in the closing months of his term. The most the Americans could allow was a limited Israeli strike against Iranian facilities, and that didn't happen either. Now we have a new US administration that favours dialogue over force. Obama has made it clear that he would make tough decisions concerning US military deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he offered the Iranians economic and scientific incentives in return for cooperation with the "international community". It is safe, therefore, to expect the political map in Iraq to change. The sectarian formula that dominated political life during the years of occupation is likely to fall apart. This may happen through so-called elections, or it can happen through a US-backed military coup. One cannot rule out that talks with the Iraqi resistance may produce a formula for an independent Iraq that is free to return to the Arab fold. If the US administration concludes that military confrontation with Iran is unavoidable, it will definitely have to do something about Iraq first. We don't know if the Americans have a deadline in their minds for Iran. Most likely, things will remain more or less the same for a couple of years or so. Interestingly, Iran's top ally in Iraq, the Higher Islamic Council of Abdel-Aziz Al-Hakim, is no longer as popular as it used to be. Meanwhile, the Daawa Party of Nuri Al-Maliki, which has links -- but not as close -- to Tehran, has been adding to its political capital. For Obama, Iraq and Iran are still tough nuts to crack. The last thing the Americans want is to let Iraq fall like a ripe fruit into Iranian hands. This is why the Americans tried so hard to put Iyad Allawi and his presumed liberal allies in power, but to no avail. For now, this option is not even being discussed. Failing to make progress in their talks with Iran, the Americans will have no option but to reach a deal with the Iraqi resistance. Either that, or pull out unconditionally, at which point Iraq would teeter on the verge of "constructive chaos", eventually slipping into a civil war to be won by the Iraqi resistance. At which point, too, the Americans would be able to strike at Iran directly or have Israel do so for them. Obama is just as eager to dismantle the Iranian nuclear programme as Bush was. And his choice of the main interlocutor with Iran is rather significant. Dennis Ross, the former coordinator for the Middle East under Clinton, is now the chief negotiator with Tehran. And you may all recall that during his years of Middle East mediation, nothing ever happened. Ross is known for being a pro-Israel diplomat. He was a co-founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which in turn is closely associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main striking force of the Israeli lobby in America. The appointment of Ross is reassuring to the Israelis, for it shows them, as US analyst Jim Lobe put it, that the Obama administration is going to get tough on Iran. Israel has been pressing the Obama administration to stand firm on Iran. Some speculated that Israel may strike at Iran without consulting with the Americans, but I don't think so. . Prior to his inauguration, Obama's top aides held extensive talks with Jewish groups in Washington to discuss Middle East issues. According to the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, the Obama team made it clear that Iran would remain a high priority until the whole nuclear issue was resolved. As for Iraq, the intentions of the new US administration are difficult to read. According to Reuters, Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes that it may take more than 16 months to conclude the US withdrawal. Speaking at a news conference in Washington, Gates said that military commanders are discussing ways to speed up the withdrawal without disrupting US commitments to the Iraqis. The differences between Obama and Gates about the speed of US withdrawal from Iraq may be quite considerable, it seems. We may not have to hold our breath for long for clarity. According to news reports, Obama is likely to announce his strategy for Iraq mid- March. But will the new president be able to stick to a given course of policy in such a volatile region? We'll have to wait and see.
