First of all, Israel wants the US to address Iran before Palestine. Iran wants less talk and more action. Syria is shocked that the US has renewed sanctions against it. Hizbolla and Hamas don't like that they're still on the outside looking in, but hopeful that George Mitchell might do something about that. Even if something is worked out, it appears that a long list of actors have to then be considered, each with their own interests which aren't necessarily compatible with the process or each other.
If there is any doubt that diplomacy is an incredibly complex job in the Middle East, the sheer number of problems behind every possible solution should quash it, and The Economist seems to admire Obama's mettle in diving in, but is realistic about the chances for success.
Here's the money quote:
But by raising expectations of a big diplomatic push, Mr Obama risks damaging American credibility more, should his efforts prove vague or toothless. Huge obstacles remain, not just regional saboteurs but also an American Congress still reluctant—though a shade less so than before—to flout Israel’s wishes. But behind the as-yet-undefined specifics of American policy, there appear to lie some new assumptions that augur well for success. One is that regional peace must be sought as a goal, not a process. Another is that the region’s troubles are all linked. Perhaps the most important is that in seeking to fix things, America will be acting neither out of charity nor in pursuit of ideological ambition but simply in its own national interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment