President Barack Obama’s May 19 speech presents an important evolution rather than a decisive break with U.S. Middle East policy, particularly as it regards the crucial question of democratic reform in the Middle East, says USIP expert Dan Brumberg.

May 20, 2011

President Barack Obama’s May 19 speech presents an important evolution rather than a decisive break with U.S. Middle East policy, particularly as it regards the crucial question of democratic reform in the Middle East. Clearly, the administration—and President Obama in particular-- sees the region’s ongoing struggles as an “historic opportunity” to show, as he put it, “that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.”

Still, if these moving words signaled an enhanced effort by the administration to demonstrate that “America’s interests are essential to people’s hopes” the most notable thing about President Obama’s speech was way it carefully delineated the multiple agendas that the U.S. has --and indeed must-- pursue in the Middle East. In that spirit while asserting that the U.S. “can—and will, speak for a set of core principles,” President Obama also acknowledged that “there will be times when our term terms interests do not align with our long term vision of the region.”

This recognition of the continued tensions in U.S. foreign policy was not only remarkable for its frankness, but for its gritty practicality. The capacity to align power and principle will necessarily vary according to the particular challenges presented in the diverse states of Middle East. Clearly, when it comes to Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iran, the administration has decided that is in U.S. interest to make full-fledged democratic change the number one goal. But on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the president hedged. He did not even mention the first, and as for the second, he emphasized the commitment of the U.S. to Bahrain’s security, while effectively chastising its leaders for suggesting that they could have a “real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.”

The ensuing focus on economic issues further underscored the administration’s multidimensional grasp of many vital interests and issues at stake in the Middle East. Having previously spurned any notion of a “strategy based solely” on either filling an empty stomach” or helping “someone to speak their mind,” President Obama went on to assert that the “tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table. Thus the urgent need to address escalating economic challenges, not merely through the familiar mechanisms of enhanced assistance, but more ambitiously, by pursuing policies focusing on trade and investment.

If what followed was not quite a Marshall Plan, the president’s proposals for debt relief, loans for finance infrastructure and job creation, as well other measures, highlighted the administration’s desire to move Arab states beyond the crony-driven market reforms of the last decade. As he put it, the “vision of a modern and prosperous economy,” should “create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Lastly, and certainly not least, President Obama addressed what he called the other “cornerstone” of U.S. policy in the region, namely the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace. While much of the language was not new, his call for a peace agreement “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” as well as his call for Israel to “act boldly” could suggest a renewed U.S. effort to encourage Palestinian and Israeli leaders to make real progress.

Translating this complex blueprint into effective policies will be the administration’s greatest challenge. Its effort to balance diverse and at times competing goals is admirable, but it will also elicit efforts by a myriad of parties to selectively interpret the president’s vision, with a view to misrepresenting or even subverting it. To thwart such efforts, the president and his foreign policy team will have to muster considerable political will and determination, both at home and abroad.

Explore Further


Related Research & Analysis

The Current Situation: Israel, The Palestinian Territories, Egypt and the Levant

The Current Situation: Israel, The Palestinian Territories, Egypt and the Levant

Monday, February 10, 2025

For over seven decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and its broader regional reverberations — has shaped Middle East politics and impacted U.S. interests in the region. Hamas’ unprecedented terror attack on October 7, 2023, the Israeli military response in Gaza and the implications for neighboring Jordan and Egypt — as well as seismic ripples in Lebanon and Syria — have sparked a new phase in the conflict’s and the region’s trajectory.

Type: Fact Sheet

What Assad’s Fall Means for Lebanon

What Assad’s Fall Means for Lebanon

Thursday, December 12, 2024

The fall of Assad’s Baathist regime was met with widespread jubilation among Lebanon's various communities, especially its Sunni, Christian and Druze, but trepidation among many Shias, whose political leadership relied on Baathist cover and support. Baathist Syria had played a major role in Lebanon, intervening in the country's civil war, occupying the country in the post-war period, and manipulating Lebanon's political landscape to benefit its political and economic interests. Though it was ousted from the country in 2005 following a mass uprising that blamed Damascus for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, the Syrian regime continued to maintain influence in the country through its allies and supporters.

Type: Analysis

Can the Fragile Israel-Hezbollah Cease-fire Hold?

Can the Fragile Israel-Hezbollah Cease-fire Hold?

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

On November 26, Israel and Lebanon agreed to a cease-fire to be implemented in phases over 60 days. If it holds, the deal will end over a year of the heaviest fighting in decades between the two sides. Formally a deal between Israel and Lebanon, the agreement is effectively between the former and Hezbollah. The next two months will serve as a crucial test for the possibility of a sustained truce and a more durable and comprehensive resolution of disputed border areas between the two countries.

Type: Question and Answer

The Middle East on Fire

The Middle East on Fire

Thursday, October 3, 2024

Iran’s ballistic missile strikes on Israel on October 1 have raised fears of an all-out war in the Middle East. The deepening spiral of bloodshed began on September 17 and 18 with the detonation across Lebanon of thousands of pagers and two-way radios used by Hezbollah operatives — one analyst deemed the unprecedented Israeli operation “the most extensive physical supply chain attack in history.” Ongoing airstrikes in Beirut and southern Lebanon have marked the most significant Israeli barrage in 11 months of tit-for-tat escalation. On September 27, Israel dealt Hezbollah a devastating blow by killing its leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike on a Beirut suburb. Despite reeling from these latest reverses and the evisceration of its command structure, the Shiite militia continues to lob missiles at Israel. Stunned and outraged, Iran — Hezbollah’s patron — fired around 200 ballistic missiles at Israel; at least one person was killed in the West Bank. Iranians are now bracing for Israeli retaliation. The cycle of violence, it appears, is far from over.

Type: Analysis

View All Research & Analysis