In the wake of the nuclear parameters framework agreement, the Obama administration is facing criticism for mishandling American relations with countries in the Arab world.
As David Rothkopf argues in Foreign Policy, “although [Obama] raised hopes of a new, better era in regional relations…ultimately, his only real efforts to change relations ‘for the better’ in the region were not with Arabs at all but with the Persians.” Such engagement, critics claim, makes America’s Arab allies feel insecure.
The Obama administration’s refusal to take a more active role in managing the region’s crisis also irks many commentators. According to Rothkopf, the Obama administration has responded to the wave of crises in the Middle East with three flawed strategies: “walking away”, “halfway measures”, and “reactive or largely improvised initiatives”.
Critics are right. The Obama administration’s policies have not advanced what most understand to be America’s strategic interests. But these policies are the product of deliberate choices rather than poor leadership, and reflects a coherent strategy in the face of political restraints, rather than an incoherent ad-hoc strategy.
(Read the rest here, at the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle Eastern Conflict’s website)
(R
Jordan Olmstead 