On Obama’s Middle East Policy with Professor Tayyar Arı from Uludağ University
Arı: The beginning to move away of Turkey together with the United States from Israel has explicitly become the trauma status in Israel.
Professor Tayyar Arı, who is known for his work on the Middle East, answered our question about the Middle East policy of US in the new era. Arı indicates the foreign policy discourse of US in the period of Obama and the changes in the relations with Israel.
ORSAM: How do you assess Obama administration policy on the Middle East in general, which is in the context of “Anti-terrorism” and according to you, what would be its differences with the old management?
Professor Tayyar Arı: War on terror was the main slogan and the basic policy of Bush. Before President Obama was elected and after he has been selected, President Obama has said that he will fight with al-Qaeda for the end of terrorism in the context of America’s security. However, in addition to basically a great stylistic difference, while conducting this struggle, he was careful not to damage the freedom inside and he maintained his work by avoiding exaggerated slogan without disturbing the Islamic world in the abroad. Firstly, Obama administration has carefully avoided use of “war on terror” concept used by Bush administarion and in a sense, usage of these concepts is abandoned. Therefore, although Obama gives weight to Afghanistan policy, he doesn’t directly express this as “war on terror”. Because it can be said that Obama pays attention to give warmer messages to the Islamic world and not to use the terrorism and Islamic concepts side by side in comparison with Bush which took all Muslims against themselves due to the usage of “war on terror”. This can be seen in his speeches both in Turkey and Egypt. This situation doesn’t mean that Obama left counter-terrorism aside and there is no doubt that it is also on the agenda of the Obama administration. Moreover, Afghanistan issue constitutes the basic agenda of foreign policy in terms of Obama administration. Obama is criticized to act reluctantly for the increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan especially by intense pressure of the extreme right. Bush’s war on terror policy have encouraged Israel to see all Palestinians as terrorists and encouraged to see violence as the only way to solve the problems. This is a situation where Obama aims to change. Although the new American administration clearly doesn’t have any change in their policy towards Hamas, they are aware of that they cannot solve this problem without Hamas. Obama has been encountered intense criticism and pressure by republican media and political world due to putting pressure on Israel, acting reluctantly for the increase in the number of military in Afghanistan and particularly by his Iran policy. This situation has been expressed on many occasions. The former President Carter’s opponents outputs (the speech of Joe Wilson, who is Republican Deputy, in Congress during the joint session lie to say Obama) assessing as racism, former president Bill Clinton’s assessment, which was about that Obama was faced with the conspiracy of the extreme right, and the impertinent comments of New York Times article written by Paul Krugman about criticism of Obama were the outputs which aims to draw attention to these pressures. Obama administration, particularly Obama, prefers a more cautious style about Afghanistan and Iran, which is different from Bush policies, against right wing’s efforts. On the other hand, this situation is harshly critcized by his counterparts which can be interpreted as impotency and lack of foresight.
How do you assess the view of the American Administration to Israel’s new government and do you think that in the coming days, there will be pressure on within the framework of Israel Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?
In the traditional policy of the United States, Israel has had a very central importance. This case has almost reached a peak in the period of President George W. Bush. However, the policies followed by Bush collected large responses both inside and outside and this situation has also an abrasive effect on America’s image. This case already has been one of main determinant for the selection of Obama as president. Although Obama team was not in a clear attitude against Israel in the process of Gaza, they were aware of that there won’t be any progress on the Middle East peace with Israel’s current stance which is maintained. Furthermore, Obama has given hope to the Islamic world and he suggested a different line has to be followed both his speech in Turkey on April 6 and his speech in Egypt on June 4. Consistent with this line, Obama expressed that he was strictly against Israel’s construction of new settlements policy both in the meeting at the White House with Netanyahu held on May 14 and his in the his subsequent speeches. In fact, although a few month passed after his election, an American president organized important visits to the countries of the region such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and he didn’t come to Israel for the first time. When I was in this country, which was in the first half of June, I obtained the chance to see the imprint of it on Israel. In Israel, both politicians and intellectuals are wondering due to the attitude of US. Actually, the only reason for this confusion is not turning US’s back on Israel. Experiencing serious problems with Turkey, which is the most important allied country in the region, and beginning to move away of Turkey from Israel also have become a clear trauma in Israel. However, in Israel, everybody, who is sane and not approaching the issue emotionally, knows very well that blockage in the peace process is the main problem among these two countries. Thus, thanks to a positive development in the peace process, Israel can ensure its relations with its former two allies. But people who know closely the structure of United States are aware of that it is not very easy to pressure Israel. The extreme right, who supported Bush before, are now severely against Obama. Especially, Hudson Institute, American Enterprise, Weekly Standard and Fox TV research institutions and media organizations, which previously were central of the neo-cons, are fully opposes Obama. Hence, anti- Obamas have become extremely successful on the Middle East peace process by drawing attention on Afghanistan and Iran. The main agenda of American public opinion in foreign policy are respectively Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East peace process. In this circumstance, I do not think that there will be obviously an important development in the short term. However, there will be some maneuvers in order to save the image.
Finally, what do you think about that Iraqi politics will developed after American withdrawal from Iraq, especially for Obama administration in the framework of probability of America’s military bases establishment in northern Iraq? In this situation, can you evaluate the US and Turkey relations in the context of NATO?
Obviously, we can say that US administration seriously consider this alternative particularly in the period of Bush. However, when we consider Obama administration’s relations with Turkey, the alternative of this situation is very low but not completely up to the shelf. People who think on these alternatives are people cutting their hopes from Turkey and seeing the Kurds as allies and people who are known for their extreme right for the proximity to Israel. However, in these days, Turkish-American relations are experiencing a different process. Thus, I don’t think that such an alternative will not be raised by Obama administration, which will create serious insecurity in Ankara-Washington line and make relations re-strained.
Dear Ari, thank you for sharing your valuable information with us.
