BICOM

Key Points

• It is too early to make anything more than a tentative assessment of the likely Middle East policy of the Obama administration. However, the sense emerging from the visit by Secretary of State Clinton to the region is that no major, substantive shift in US Middle East policy is taking place. The administration faces other urgent issues creating a lack of ‘bandwidth’ to devote to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the administration’s desire to advance the process.

• However, there is likely to be a change in presentation, with a correspondingly greater willingness on the part of the administration to be publicly critical of Israel on areas of disagreement.

• On the Israeli-Palestinian track, there is a possibility of sharp disagreement between the Obama administration and the incoming Netanyahu government on the issue of construction in West Bank settlements[i] and policy in Jerusalem. But the administration is aware of the objective constraints on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and is therefore unlikely to place undue substantive pressure on Israel. 

• Secretary of State Clinton is under no illusions regarding the difficulties ahead in prising Syria away from Iran, and in causing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.  As such, while engagement is to be given a chance, this should not be interpreted as abandonment of the basic contours of previous US policy. Above all, the administration appears to be aware of the urgency of the hour in preventing a nuclear Iran. 

Introduction

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday 8 March completed her first trip to the Middle East as Secretary of State. Clinton visited Egypt, Israel, the PA territories and Turkey. The last week also witnessed diplomatic overtures to Syria and Iran, with the dispatching of two US officials, Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro to Damascus. The visit is being seen as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to rebuild the US’s image in the region. This document will review the main events of the Clinton visit and will seek to infer the likely direction of the policy of the Obama administration both towards Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Middle East. 

Israel and the Palestinians

The Secretary of State attended the donors’ conference at Sharm al-Sheikh on Monday 2 March and announced a pledge of $900,000,000 to the Gaza Strip. Robert Wood, spokesman for the Secretary of State, later confirmed that $300,000,000 would go to humanitarian aid in Gaza, while the remainder would be allocated as budget and development aid to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, thus avoiding the possibility that US funds could benefit Hamas. 

Clinton told the conference that, “Our response to today’s crisis in Gaza cannot be separated from our broader efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace… by providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, we also aim to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized, a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbours and is accountable to its people.”[ii]

Clinton spent the next day in Israel meeting with Israeli officials, including President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu. In an interview, Clinton said that the US would be taking up this issue of construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank with the new Israeli government when it was formed.  While visiting the PA areas, she was critical of the Jerusalem Municipality’s plans to demolish illegally built structures adjoining Jerusalem’s Old City. The Secretary of State also took note of continued rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza on Israeli communities, saying that, “It is very difficult for any country to just sit and take rockets falling on its people. That is the crux of the Israeli problem. How are they supposed to respond when they continue to have that kind of attack?”[iii] Clinton was also unambiguous in ruling out any role in the diplomatic process for Hamas, for as long as the movement continues to reject the principles outlined by the Quartet and the Arab League. The Quartet Principles are an issue of particular importance to moderate Palestinians and to PA Chairman Abbas.    

Media attention focused on Clinton’s expressions of criticism of Israeli policy in Jerusalem, and of settlements. However, it should be noted that with regard to Israel and the Palestinians, nothing said during the visit indicated a major shift in US policy. The US has throughout been opposed to the presence of settlements on the West Bank. The extent of the disagreement between Israel and the US on this issue has varied depending on who is in power in Washington and in Jerusalem. It is likely that the tones may grow sharper between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government on this matter, and Clinton’s comments may presage the kind of language that will be used. Such language reflects a genuine policy difference between Israel and the US, but it also plays a useful diplomatic role for Washington in that criticizing Israel in this regard helps establish US credentials as an honest broker.

It is important to draw a distinction between issues of presentation and substantive policy change. Washington is acutely aware of Palestinian divisions and disunity. While the Administration will wish to be seen to be doing something on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, hopes are not high regarding the possibility of a significant move forward in final status talks in the near future. Palestinian unity talks are currently taking place in Cairo, and the outcome of these talks will also play its role in defining the nature of future US engagement. 

The wider Middle East

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has stressed his desire for engagement with all states in the region, and his willingness for dialogue. Particular attention is focused on Iran and Syria. The Clinton visit saw the beginnings of significant movement in US policy toward Syria. The first hint of this became apparent at the Sharm conference, where Clinton shook hands and exchanged a few words with her Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem. It was subsequently announced that two senior officials, Jeffrey D. Feltman, acting assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and Dan Shapiro, the senior official for the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, would visit Damascus over the weekend[iv]. This was the first contact between US and Syrian officials since 2005. Feltman later described his talks in Damascus as ‘very constructive.’[v] 

However there is a growing sense that the administration, while committed to engagement, is realistic about the major issues of dispute between the US and both Syria and Iran. Clinton was keen to play down expectations regarding Syria, declining while in Jerusalem to make any predictions regarding the shape of likely US-Syrian relations. She was also notably sanguine regarding chances of a major breakthrough on the Iranian nuclear program. In a private meeting with UAE foreign minister Sheik Abdullah ibn Zayed al Nuhayyan, Clinton said that it was ‘very doubtful’ that a US diplomatic overture to Iran would persuade Teheran to give up its nuclear ambitions.[vi] She stressed, however, that American diplomacy at this point could strengthen Washington’s position when persuading key allies to apply increased pressure on Iran. These remarks suggest that the US is already looking to the likely next stage following an Iranian rebuffal of engagement, to the possibility of increased economic and diplomatic sanctions. 

Another important element in Clinton’s visit was her meeting in Geneva with the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. The media recently reported efforts by the Obama Administration to secure Russian cooperation in halting the Iranian nuclear programme, by offering US agreement to back off from deploying a new missile defence system in Eastern Europe as a quid pro quo. The US is also keen for Russia to hold off delivery of advanced S300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.[vii] Against this background, Clinton’s meeting with her Russian counterpart constitutes a significant move in shoring up US alliances for possible increased pressure on Iran further down the road.[viii]

Alongside the challenge of Iran, the administration faces other issues requiring its urgent attention in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and further afield in North Korea. Conversations with US officials suggest that there will be a certain lack of ‘bandwidth’ left to deal with Israeli-Palestinian issues, despite the administration’s passionate commitment to peace in the Middle East.

Conclusion

It is too early for concrete conclusions regarding the direction of Obama’s Middle East policy. But the overall impression emerging so far from the Clinton visit is that no major shift in US Middle East policy is taking place. On the Israeli-Palestinian track, there is a possibility of sharp, public disagreement between the Obama administration and the incoming Netanyahu government on the issue of construction in West Bank settlements and policy in Jerusalem. This reflects the new administration’s preference for frank, public conversation with both its allies and its potential opponents. Criticism of Israel in this area plays an instrumental role for Washington, as well as reflecting a substantive policy difference. But the administration is aware of the objective constraints on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and is therefore unlikely to place undue pressure on Israel. 

More broadly, while a change in tone has undoubtedly taken place in the US approach, neither Secretary of State Clinton, nor her envoy on Iran Dennis Ross, nor Mid-East envoy George Mitchell are under any illusions regarding the difficulties ahead in prising Syria away from Iran, and in causing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. As such, while engagement is being given a chance, this should not be interpreted to mean that the present administration is abandoning the basic contours of previous US regional policy. Above all, the administration appears to be aware of the urgency of the hour in preventing a nuclear Iran. The clear attempt to signal a qualitative change in atmospherics, therefore, should be seen to be taking place on a foundation of essential continuity in US regional policy.

---

[i] It is important to stress here that the differences are on the issue of further construction in existing settlement blocs, and removal of illegal outposts in the West Bank. Benjamin Netanyahu and his party are not in favour of establishing entirely new settlements. 

[ii] “No US funds will go to Hamas, Clinton says,” Reuters, 2 March 2009. http://www.reuters.com

[iii] “Clinton pledges to press for Palestinian State,” al-Arabiyya, 3 March 2009. http://www.alarabiya.net

[iv] Glenn Kessler, “US sends senior officials to Syria to revive relations,” Washington Post, 4 March 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com

[v] “US envoy: Syria talks very constructive,” USA Today, 3 March 2009. http://www.usatoday.com

[vi]  Paul Richter, “Clinton says US diplomacy unlikely to end Iran nuclear program,” Los Angeles Times, 3 March 2009, http://www.latimes.com

[vii]  The sale has apparently been made, though the missiles have not yet been delivered. Clinton reportedly received re-assurances from the Russians, but no commitment that the delivery would not be made. 

[viii] Richard Sisk, “Hilary Clinton emerges from Russia talks with tentative deal to revive nuclear weapons agreements,”  New York Daily News, 7 March 2009, http://www.nydailynews.com