The extraordinary protests in Iran are captivating the world. The best way of following the fast evolving developments is via Twitter (Google report). Click here to do so.
Responding to the situation President Obama was careful not to be seen to be interfering but said that he was "deeply troubled" by the violence he was watching on TV. He also said that he was "inspired" by the Iranian people's belief in democracy and freedom. Describing many of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's views as "odious" he nonetheless said that his administration remained committed to a dialogue with Tehran.
Some American conservatives are furious with this stance. "He has given the impression," editorialises the National Review, "that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it." The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband backed Obama's careful statement, however. He counselled that intervention on behalf of the protestors could be counter-productive:
"The long thesis of the conspiracy of foreign powers against Iran is one that is deeply ingrained in the popular imagination and peddled vociferously by the regime. What is very, very important is that we continue to show respect for the Iranian people - that's what President Obama did yesterday - that we continue to insist that it is for them to choose their government."
If Ahmadinejad holds on to his country's presidency it could make life difficult for Obama. The BBC's Justin Webb describes "the result of the Iranian election [as] the worst possible outcome for President Obama":
"He could have coped quite cheerfully with an Ahmadinejad loss of course but also with a clean-cut win where he could have expressed respect for the government and moved on. But now it is difficult for him to deal substantively with a regime that seems so illegitimate - result: stasis. And the result of that could be growing pressure for any outreach to Iran to come to an end."
Israel's PM made the policy shift after pressure from Barack Obama. Mr Netanyahu insisted that recognition would have to be linked to Palestinian demilitarisation and, against the White House's wishes, he declined to change policy on Israel settlements on the West Bank. The Times:
"Binyamin Netanyahu threw down the gauntlet to the US last night, grudgingly agreeing to a limited Palestinian state that would be demilitarised and not in control of its airspace or borders. The hawkish Prime Minister insisted that Israel would never give up a united Jerusalem as its capital, and said that established Jewish settlements in the West Bank would continue to expand — despite explicit objections from Washington."
The President's speech received a standing ovation from its Cairo audience and this Huffington Post report indicates why:
"In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," said the president, who recalled hearing prayer calls of "azaan" at dawn and dusk while living in Indonesia as a boy."
A few immediate reactions from commentators:
James Forsyth: "Obama’s speech to the ‘Muslim world’ in Egypt was full of necessary fictions. But more substantively it set out what Obama sees as seven areas where progress must be made if tensions are to be eased: the fight against violent extremism, Israel / Palestine, Iran’s nuclear ambition, democracy, religious freedom, womens’ rights and economic development. Missing from the speech was a clear appreciation that violent extremism comes out of an extremist ideology. Violent extremism cannot be defeated until the ideology that lies behind it is tackled."
Janet Daley: "The White House presented this speech as "a beginning" and made it clear that it did not expect the problems of the region to be transformed overnight. The question is, what happens next? Mr Obama's requests for Hamas to lay down its arms, and Israel to accept a two-state solution are not going to be met (at least not in the immediate future). Violent extremism is not going to be roundly eliminated by Muslim governments. Islamic women are not going to be given equal opportunties for education, and Arab regimes are not going to embrace human rights, however universal Mr Obama believes their value to be. The White House is presumably aware of all this. Will the speech then simply become another symbol of the Obama moral superiority over his bellicose, tactless predecessor, and so serve purely the interests of domestic politics? Or could it be a useful pretext for justifying later military action on the basis that diplomacy had been tried and proved futile? Does the White House have a plan for what happens when the Muslim world applauds but fails to change course?"
Andrew Sullivan: "I think the last decade or so has shown the extreme limits of hard power and the desperate need for more public diplomacy, national re-branding and some shrewd maneuvering to advance the interests of the West and to help avoid what could be a catastrophic era in global politics. I still believe in the prudent use of military force, and the need to keep a threat of such force in diplomacy. But the great challenge of the war against Jihadist terror is shifting the psyches of countless young Muslims, from Pakistan to Morocco. That we have chance to do that with this president is itself testimony to democracy's capacity for correcting mistakes and the strength of its ethnic and cultural diversity in appealing to the wider world."
Ali Abunimah of 'Electronic Intifada': "He may have more determination than his predecessor but he remains committed to an unworkable two-state "vision" aimed not at restoring Palestinian rights, but preserving Israel as an enclave of Israeli Jewish privilege. It is a dead end."
Michael Rubin: "Obama studiously avoids the word democracy. Instead, he declared, "That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people." Dictators of the world, relax: Stage a spontaneous demonstration to demonstrate popular adulation; don't worrt about those pesky votes."
President Obama chose an interview with the BBC's Justin Webb to begin his outreach to the Muslim world:
Webb, the BBC's departing North America Editor, is positive about the interview on his blog, except in one important respect:
"I asked him straight whether Hosni Mubarak (the Egyptian leader for 28 years!) was an autocrat. Mr Obama told me he was a force for stability and good."
In Saudia Arabia he paid tribute to the country's leader King Abdullah as "wise and gracious." He continued:
"I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began and to seek his majesty's counsel and to discuss with him many of the issues that we confront here in the Middle East."
David Frum hopes the President uses his speech to address the need for greater freedom within the Muslim world:
"The Pakistani scholar who wants to be free to study the origins of the Koran without fear of violence if he reaches an unorthodox conclusion – isn’t he part of the Muslim world too? The Saudi woman who would like to wear jeans in public? The Iranian youth who would like to convert to the Bahai faith? The Senegalese merchant who prefers the movies to the mosque? The French student who celebrates Ramadan with his parents and Christmas with his girlfriend? Or his boyfriend? Will the President talk to them? If not – it would be better to stay home."
