Dear Mr President

An open letter to Barack Obama from the writer PJ O'Rourke

In your conduct of foreign policy, I had expected you to be wrong. I hadn’t expected you to be a self-righteous bumbler, lecturing humanity on morals while possessing no clear moral vision of your own. You are the kind of thinker who outsmarts no one but himself, by turns too skeptical and too credulous, too permissive and too controlling, too understanding and too obtuse.

What Obama must achieve in Egypt today

Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East is not going to get the airtime that this momentous occasion should get but it is worth focusing on some of the issues that need to be tackled.

Over at Open Democracy,Nader Hashemi writes that his speech in Egypt requires three things to bring on board the sceptical Muslim audience that he will address.

1.that it should be a townhall-style meeting with everyday Egyptian citizens.

The symbolic value of such an event cannot be overstated. The sight of an American president, in open and uncensored dialogue with ordinary Muslims, will go a long way towards demonstrating respect for the Islamic world.

2.that it must address the key topic in the Arab world which is Palestine and

3.

Obama must be prepared to offend - albeit indirectly - his Egyptian hosts. There is a pungency in the leader of the "free world" delivering a major speech to Muslims in one of the least free parts of the world. Hosni Mubarak is one of the most despised as well as one of the longest-standing dictators in the Arab world - a status owed to a mix of his close alliance with the United States, his security forces' internal repression and his collusion with Israel in maintaining the siege of Gaza.

The problem is who to deal with in Korea

I blogged earlier about the latest tensions from the Korean peninsular and finished by saying that the more worrying aspect is the state of the leadership in Pyongyang.

Writing in the New York Times,Mark Landler recognises the problems saying that

In dealing with North Korea, American officials are reduced to studying two-month-old photographs of its reclusive leader, Kim Jong-il, to calculate how long he is likely to live.

One of the theories is that the military do not want a continuation of the Jong-il regime and that the latest manoeuvring may be a symptom of that battle

“People who tell you they know what’s going on there don’t know,” said one official, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “What’s undeniable is that there are substantial challenges to all the previous approaches to North Korea.”

Only one real concern for the White House

A good piece in the New York Times today which probably sums up the real concerns that the Obama White House have with thir Pakistani allies

as Taliban and other insurgents have battled government troops closer and closer to Islamabad, the one thing that no one seemed to be talking about publicly is the one thing that, privately, Obama officials acknowledge is the most important: how to get the Pakistani government and army to move the country’s troops from the east, where they are preoccupied with a war with India that most American officials do not think they will have to fight, to the west, where the Islamist insurgents are taking over one town after another.

Is Obama the best one for the crisis?

Staying on the subject of the G20 Gideon Rachman writes a good if rather worrying piece in the FT this morning

The gap between ambition and reality was apparent on each stage of Mr Obama’s European odyssey

She considers that there may be a more fundemental problem

The new American president faces an economic disaster at home, a stalemated war in Afghanistan, unpredictable adversaries in places such as North Korea, and largely unhelpful allies in Europe. This week Mr Obama cemented the impression that he is an unusually gifted and intelligent politician. But that does not mean he will succeed. It could just be that he is the right man at the wrong time.

Netanyahu's challenge for Obama

The Israeli Prime Minister,Benjamin Netanyahu lays down a challenge for Barcak Obama in an interview with Atlantic magazine.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,”

On the second issue,he tells Jeffrey Goldberg that he Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Interesting words and on the eve of taking office Netanyahu has clearly drawn a line in the sand over what he feels are the priorities for Israel

Obama reaches out to the Iranian people

For thise who haven't seen it this is the President reaching out to the Iranian people.Patronising? well possibly with his reamarks on their contribution to civilisation and the common humanity that he says binds the two nations together.

Mind yoiu he cannot be accused of going back on an election promise

Is it now time to talk to Hamas

I blogged a few days ago about it being perhaps time for the United States to talk to the Taliban to create an impetus for change in Afghanistan.

Another pariah would be to talk to Hamas and begin a process of reconciliation in the Palestinian territories.

Roger Cohen believes that this may eb the way forward writing in the New York Times who says that

The Obama administration should also look carefully at how to reach moderate Hamas elements and engineer a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.

Of course the critics will point to its charter and its non reconciliation of Israel but as Roger points out

it’s wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance — although it has offered a decades-long truce — but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state.

It is also important to recognise that Hamas won a free and fair election in the territory.The fact that it was unwanted by the Americans does not make it any less legitimate

Time to negotiate with the Taliban

Imran Khan was being interviewed by Andrew Marr earlier and made the suggestion that it would be better for the Western powers to leave Afghanistan immediately.

His rational was two fold.Firstly that the conflict was destroyed his own country Pakistan,and secondly that history has taught us that any conflict in Afghanistan is unwindable.Just ask the Soviet army of the 1980's and the British army of the 19th century.

More controversially he also suggested that Barack Obama should immediately ope negotiations with the Taliban.They,he argued were never the West's enemy.

Today's New York Times on that very subject carries an interview with the American President in which he

declared the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

It will be seen in some quarters as a controversial policy but with the war seemingly deadlocked and western patience with the Karzai regime seemingly running out it may be a way forward.

Wanted dead or alive

When Barack Obama takes centre stage on the 20th Jan,one of the decisions that he is going to have to make is over the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

Over at Time.com Robert Bauer wonders whether it may be time to call a halt to the search

The last relatively reliable bin Laden sighting was in late 2001. A video that he apparently appeared in last year shows him with a dyed beard. More than a few Pakistani intelligence operatives who knew bin Laden scoff at the idea he would ever dye his beard. They think the tape was manipulated from old footage, and that bin Laden is in fact dead.

adding that his non appearnace during the election campaign was proof in itself that he is no longer around.

However Obama has a problem.Without conclusive proof

whether bin Laden is alive or dead is actually pretty irrelevant. President-elect Barack Obama has no real choice but to revitalize the search for him, if only for political considerations. If al-Qaeda were to attack in the U.S. in the first months of his term, Obama would end up explaining why he wasn't more vigilant for the rest of it.

Obama the fight will go on but a break from the recent past

Jonathon Freedland puts his own perspective on Barcak Obama in his Gaurdian piece this morning.

Whilst revelling in the new world affair's strategy that his election will bring to the White House he urges caution

liberals and anti-war types should not declare the new president a kindred spirit too hastily

And furthermore

As Obama himself said in the now famous 2002 speech denouncing the Iraq adventure: "I am not opposed to all wars." It's true that he avoids the phrase "war on terror". But that is not because he thinks there is no war to be fought. His disagreement with Bush was that the latter had failed to define America's enemy clearly. It was not an abstract noun - terror - but a specific organisation with a specific leader, namely al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Indeed, one of Obama's central critiques of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that it diverted attention and resources from the true fight - against the men who had actually attacked the US on September 11 2001.

It was all about oil

Staying on the subject of American policy in the Middle East,remember the arguments at the time of the lead up of the Iraq war.It was all about oil.

Today those may have been true all along.The New York Times is reporting that

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say

.adding

The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism

And the article continues

The deals have been criticized by opponents of the Iraq war, who accuse the Bush administration of working behind the scenes to ensure Western access to Iraqi oil fields even as most other oil-exporting countries have been sharply limiting the roles of international oil companies in development.

Is an attack on Iran inevitable?

There has been a fair amount of speculation in the media over the United States' intentions on Iran,amid rumours of rehersal attacks by Israel and American policy in the Middle East.

It is worth reading Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker who firmly believes that the Bush administration is gearing up for an attack.

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Whether this intelligence is a prelude to a military strike is unclear and as Hersh points out

there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.

This weeks Economist also looks at the issue vis a vie Israel and concludes that

Such an attack would be a mistake. Even if it did not turn the region into a “fireball”, as Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog, has predicted, it would certainly provoke retaliation. Given Iran’s size and sophistication, it would at best delay rather than end whatever plans the Iranians have to become a nuclear military power. Even if Iran did get the bomb, it would probably not use it for fear of Israel’s bigger, existing stockpile. And in the (admittedly improbable) event that Iran is telling the truth when it denies having any such ambition, nothing would change its mind faster than an Israeli strike.

However as it points out for Israel,the logical conclusion is not always the one followed

Given their history, a lot of Israelis will run almost any risk to prevent a state that calls repeatedly for their own state’s destruction from acquiring the wherewithal to bring that end about

Robin Lustig also takes a look at the logistics and concludes that

Israel bombs Iran. Iran retaliates. Its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza (Hizbollah and Hamas respectively) launch multiple rocket attacks into Israel.
But they do more. They order their allies in Iraq into action against US forces there. As a well-informed American friend said the other day: "Israel attacks Iran with US approval and Americans die? I don't think so."

and furthermore with Israel's Prime Minister in rather a precarious situation domestically at the moment would this be a viable option for the country

Iran still holds the US attention

The United States is facing key military and political decisions over a bitter current adversary, Iran, and an adversary-turned-ally, Iraq. Their outcome will have major consequences for the short- and medium-term future both of the middle east and the US homeland.

That's the thoughts of Paul Rogers writing over at Open Democracy.

Whilst the attention of the world is on Bush's visit to the UK and the announcemnt that Britain is going to send more troops to the country,it is worth reminding us of the battle still raging in the Middle East.

Rogers cites evidence to back up his statement.Firstly that the debate over whether to go to war over Iran's nuclear strategy is regaing in the White House.Secondly that Bush's decisions with the Israeli Prime Minister focused mainly on Iran and thirdly that Bush is using his farewell European tour to drum up support for an Iranian strategy.

According to Rogers

The prospect of a grinning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outlasting the administration that for so long excoriated him would be a form of humiliation as well as confirmation of deep policy failure.

and cites the continued influence of Vice President Cheney in this strategy.

Who will turn the tide of American foreign policy

According to ex President Jimmy Carter interviewed by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian's Saturday magazine,the next President should take no longer than 10 minutes to change America's image in the world.

the time it would take to deliver an inaugural address that would promise that America "will never again torture a prisoner... never again attack another country unless our security is directly threatened", will honour its international agreements and do the right thing on climate change.

How do the two candidates compare and will they change America's image.

In some respects John McCain is more of a hawk in foriegn than George Bush ever was.The war in Iraq is going to be a major feature of the campaign and McCain has famously said that troops will stay in the country for as long as it takes.He voted in favour of the war,and has supported all of Bush's terror bills.In a recent speach he lookd forward to 4 years time where American troops are welcomed home as heroes,with Al Qaeda defeated in Iraq,the war won and Iraqi security forces maintaining control of the country.

By contrast Obama voted against the war,has had a consistent policy about the situation out there and has vowed to bring the troops back in a reasonable timeframe.Only last week he said that the war in Iraq has made Iran stronger and both Israel and the Uniited States more insecure.

However his willingness to talk to talk with leaders of hostile countries has unnerved an American public and his commitment to Israel has been questioned.This may well have a knock on effect in November when it comes to capturing the Jewish vote.Recently he has clarified his position

"We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements," There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations."

He has pledged to close Guantanamo bay and to restore the rule of Habeas corpus.He has also shown committment to the issues of the 21st century such as global warming and fighting poverty genocide and disease.

In many respects McCain is close to these issues when the spotlight is on him.said Stephen Hess, a scholar at the Washington-based Brookings Institution said that

McCain is a ``maverick'' who often bucks Republican principles,.His emphasis on issues may change as he tries to appeal more to his party's conservative base and separate himself from Obama,

So whilst the fight for the Independent vote continues,McCain will stress his commitment to closing the detention camp and new policies to combat global warming.