In Focus: Poisoned chalice The new US administration inherits the debacle wrought by Bush and his neocon cronies. So what options does Obama have, asks Galal Nassar Democratic candidate Barack Obama's victory over his Republican rival John McCain marks an unprecedented event in US history. A man of African and Muslim roots now heads the world's greatest power. Significant as this is, and in spite of the president-elect's reputedly keen intelligence, forcefulness of character, dynamism and charisma, he faces formidable challenges. He will, after all, be taking the reins from George Bush, and along with them the seemingly insurmountable political, military and economic problems bequeathed by the Bush administration. The most important of the challenges heaped on Obama's plate are of direct concern to the Arab and Islamic worlds. They include the war on terror, renegade nations, the Greater Middle East project, the stalled peace process and the ramifications of the Russian-Georgian dispute and attendant chill in US- Russian relations. There is also the international economic and financial crisis. Each of these questions merits separate articles. Here I will confine myself to the fraught issues that fall under the heading of the war on terrorism, taking in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Iranian nuclear programme. During his electoral campaign Obama pledged to withdraw US forces from Iraq as quickly as possible and strengthen those currently in Afghanistan. His plan is to concentrate military efforts on the main pit of terrorism rather than spreading forces too thinly. Obama was never a supporter of the invasion of Iraq or of short-sighted military adventurism. However sincere his pledge, cautious political analysts cannot help but question its feasibility in view of the potentially grave impact on US interests across the region. Full and rapid US withdrawal from Iraq will set into motion a train of events that most Americans will find unpalatable. The house of cards that the Bush administration has constructed in Iraq will implode. The Iraqi opposition will take over and sweep away the experiment in democracy that the US had propped up while the country descends into an inferno of internecine strife, and possibly civil war, luring Iraq's neighbours to intervene in its internal affairs. This is the sad reality of Iraq, brought on by the US-led invasion and the destruction of the edifices of government. Iraq is caught in the vice of American and Iranian ambitions and releasing it will not be easy. While there are around 150,000 US troops in Iraq at present, there are at least twice that number of Iranian forces on the ground. US forces are clearly visible, Iranian forces are not. After all the money and lives lost in a five-year long war of attrition, are the Americans really going to hand the reins of control in Iraq to the Iranians? Is the US going to make of Iraq a present to the very people whose wings it has been trying to clip? Could it possibly hand Iran additional economic power in the form of the oil wells in southern Iraq in addition to the broad strategic depth of an area that Iran will annex in effect if not in name? Surely the US would not feel comfortable with southern Iraq in the hands of hardliners loyal to Tehran and who could pose a direct threat to its strategic interests in the Gulf, or with handing the reins of power in central and western Iraq to Al-Qaeda or forces of a similar stamp? Such are the questions that must be answered by those who believe in a complete and rapid US withdrawal from Iraq. Military analysts are more inclined to believe that Obama's administration will opt for a phased withdrawal. While it would redeploy some forces to Afghanistan in order to tilt military balances there away from the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, it will seek to maintain definitive military weight in Iraq in order to forestall the scenarios described above. In the longer term it may relocate US forces away from urban centres and into bases where they could keep a lower profile. Such a strategy would save American lives and materiel resources while releasing forces for other tasks. It would obviate the spectre of the Iraqi opposition seizing control and of more direct Iranian tampering in Iraqi affairs. If, indeed, this is the strategy, the Obama administration must work to secure the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, a task the Bush administration may not have enough time to accomplish. It will also have to orchestrate the political situation in Iraq in a manner that ensures Iraq remains a stable US ally in the course of, and following, any major withdrawal. Obama's pledge to break the back of terrorism in Afghanistan is no less difficult to achieve. The US has been fighting in Afghanistan for more than six years, sustaining great material and human losses. Hope may spring eternal, but what magic wand can Obama possible wave? Redeploying some forces from Iraq is not likely to hasten victory, especially given that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are increasingly energetic in the face of the obvious fatigue of their enemies. Both the Afghani and Pakistani people are growing more and more incensed at the toll being taken on them by this ongoing war of attrition. The US has failed to deliver on its promises of economic prosperity and democracy for the Afghani people whose lives seem to have grown ever more nightmarish in recent years. But they are not the only ones who must be asking themselves what the Americans have been trying to accomplish. Dissatisfaction has spread to Pakistan, where American war planes and missiles now soar overhead in defiance of Pakistani sovereignty and not infrequently claiming innocent Pakistani lives. The rising tensions do not bode well in any battle for hearts and minds. The Iranian nuclear issue may prove just as intractable. Obama has no military muscles to flex to intimidate Tehran. Recourse to the military option is difficult to conceive not only because of the difficulties in which US forces are currently embroiled but also because it would wreak havoc on the prices of energy resources and the already reeling international economy. The American campaign to isolate Russia, which reached its peak during the Russian-Georgian war, has made it almost certain that Moscow will side with Tehran in any possible confrontation, propelling the world towards an even more dangerous brink. The tools at Obama's disposal are intelligent diplomacy combined with soft power. These will have to form the staging points for peaceful talks, replacing the dialogue of arms that has proven so disastrous to everyone. The president- elect seems to realise that the solutions to complex and dangerous situations entail remedying their underlying causes and that arrogance and heavy- handedness are not useful attributes. Hopefully, the actions he takes upon coming to power will bear this out.
