The pressures for the status quo in the Middle East

On AmericaInTheWorld's Notable Arguments blog we today highlight Gideon Rachman's article for the Financial Times. In his approach to the Middle East, will a President Obama be a lumper - inclined to view the region's problems and conflicts as part of a single issue - or a splitter - dealing with them case by case?

Rachman argues the latter: economic problems and other foreign policy matters will prevent Obama from focusing as much time on the Israel-Palestinian conflict with a view to solving it so as to solve the region's other problems. This means that the scope for a broad and sweeping change to existing policies is reduced.

The Economist has also highlighted earlier this month the degree to which prevailing circumstances may fetter Barack Obama's discretion:

"Mr Obama is a paid-up subscriber to the goal of reducing US dependence on the Middle East for its energy needs. However, for the next eight years at least the US will continue to import increasing quantities of Middle East oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), and even if the US does manage to curb its oil consumption, energy trends in the Middle East will still have an impact on the US by virtue of their global importance. This will render it imperative for Mr Obama to maintain the tradition of close US relations with Saudi Arabia..."

Comments

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

The Zionist lobby in the States makes US leadership 'inoperative' and it isn't wanted in the Gulf anyway now that Saddam has gone.

Change will come from within Israel due to demographic pressure and internal division. The Zionist problem is about to get a lot better on its own.

Iran cannot afford foreign wars. It should be left alone to resolve its leadership issues in peace. Provocation would be very silly and exactly what Mr Ahmadi-Nejad wants.

Just my little thoughts. I am sure most of you want to 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'. OK, go for it.