I have the feeling that many throughout the Arab world will be muttering, “Come back Obama, all is forgiven” next January when his replacement is inaugurated into office. Obama failed to live up to his promise, or should I say promises, to build bridges with predominately Muslim countries and to work hard for a Palestinian state.
His intentions may have been worthy, but he has a tendency to quit at the first hurdle. On the contrary his inaction to save the Syrian people, his dithering before going after Daesh in Iraq, his intervention in Libya and hitherto neglect are all black marks scarring his legacy—and Europe, playing unwilling host to millions of refugees, is paying the price.
Likewise, his détente with Iran that has rearranged the region’s geopolitical deckchairs and his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt over the will of tens of millions of Egyptians are viewed by many as knives in the back. On his watch, terrorist attacks have increased. Islamophobia is rampant and, racial tensions within the United States have rarely been this tense.
But those once counting down the months in this part of the world hoping for a more effective successor are likely to be disappointed. The protagonists may have different personalities, behavioral styles and differing foreign policy goals but neither is likely to cement closer partnerships or consolidate trust with regional leaderships.
Trump’s blanket judgment of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims on whom he wants to shut the gate is an example of sheer ignorance, yet he has admitted that the US should never have invaded Iraq, which he affirms, has “destabilized the Middle East.” On the other hand, Clinton has termed the barring of Muslims “un-American” but she did vote for the Iraq war, a decision she says she now regrets.
Trump talks tough on how to deal with Iran. He fought against the nuclear agreement that provided Tehran with a windfall of over $150 billion in unfrozen funds and has vowed to withdraw from the deal. Clinton admits that it was her aides who began secret talks with Iranian negotiators.
On Israel, there isn’t a chink of light between the two; both have prostrated themselves on AIPAC’s alter pledging that Israel’s security is their prime foreign policy consideration. It’s doubtful that either will go the extra mile to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
Trump’s attitude to Saudi Arabia is mixed. Like Clinton, he gave his support to the release of classified pages within the official 9/11 report related to Saudi Arabia and to a congressional bill permitting individuals to take Saudi Arabia to court (notwithstanding the report vindicates Riyadh both directly and indirectly).
Yet, he told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly that his administration would back Saudi Arabia in any regional conflict that emerges in the Middle East . . . for a price. At the same time, he has advocated an end to the US purchase of Saudi oil unless Riyadh commits to taking on Daesh.
Some pundits claim the Arab Muslim world would feel more comfortable working with another President Clinton than the “loose cannon” alternative.
There’s no doubt that the vast majority of Egyptians are rooting for Trump; not because they like him or respect him, but simply because Hillary is a hated figure in Egypt due to what Egyptians perceive as her championing of the Brotherhood. Indeed, the former Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El-Haddad was once a Clinton Foundation staffer while the family of her closest aide and friend Huma Abedin is believed to include high profile members of the organization.
During Clinton’s last visit to Cairo and Alexandria some years ago, her motorcade was pelted with eggs and shoes. She has since referred to Egypt as “basically an army dictatorship” despite the fact the country now has an elected president and parliament. As Eric Trager wrote in the Washington Post, “Clinton seems Cairoed out.” When it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood, Trump is on the same page as the Egyptian president and, overall, Republican politicians are more sympathetic to Egypt’s challenges than their Democratic counterparts.
Clinton was a driving force behind President Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya and says she has no regrets. Trump has flip-flopped. After suggesting that the country was better off when Qaddafi was in control—which it definitely was—he later said he would have opted for a surgical assassination of the former Libyan leader.
Trump supporters accuse Clinton of being a warmonger in sheep’s clothing. The Clinton crowd believes Trump presents a danger; someone who cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes, particularly since he allegedly asked one of his advisers why the US can’t actually deploy them. Suspenseful times ahead until America chooses. Whoever is picked, hang on to your hats!
Linda S. Heard is an award-winning British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Two sides of the same dime
Posted on August 11, 2016 by Linda S. Heard
I have the feeling that many throughout the Arab world will be muttering, “Come back Obama, all is forgiven” next January when his replacement is inaugurated into office. Obama failed to live up to his promise, or should I say promises, to build bridges with predominately Muslim countries and to work hard for a Palestinian state.
His intentions may have been worthy, but he has a tendency to quit at the first hurdle. On the contrary his inaction to save the Syrian people, his dithering before going after Daesh in Iraq, his intervention in Libya and hitherto neglect are all black marks scarring his legacy—and Europe, playing unwilling host to millions of refugees, is paying the price.
Likewise, his détente with Iran that has rearranged the region’s geopolitical deckchairs and his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt over the will of tens of millions of Egyptians are viewed by many as knives in the back. On his watch, terrorist attacks have increased. Islamophobia is rampant and, racial tensions within the United States have rarely been this tense.
But those once counting down the months in this part of the world hoping for a more effective successor are likely to be disappointed. The protagonists may have different personalities, behavioral styles and differing foreign policy goals but neither is likely to cement closer partnerships or consolidate trust with regional leaderships.
Trump’s blanket judgment of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims on whom he wants to shut the gate is an example of sheer ignorance, yet he has admitted that the US should never have invaded Iraq, which he affirms, has “destabilized the Middle East.” On the other hand, Clinton has termed the barring of Muslims “un-American” but she did vote for the Iraq war, a decision she says she now regrets.
Trump talks tough on how to deal with Iran. He fought against the nuclear agreement that provided Tehran with a windfall of over $150 billion in unfrozen funds and has vowed to withdraw from the deal. Clinton admits that it was her aides who began secret talks with Iranian negotiators.
On Israel, there isn’t a chink of light between the two; both have prostrated themselves on AIPAC’s alter pledging that Israel’s security is their prime foreign policy consideration. It’s doubtful that either will go the extra mile to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
Trump’s attitude to Saudi Arabia is mixed. Like Clinton, he gave his support to the release of classified pages within the official 9/11 report related to Saudi Arabia and to a congressional bill permitting individuals to take Saudi Arabia to court (notwithstanding the report vindicates Riyadh both directly and indirectly).
Yet, he told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly that his administration would back Saudi Arabia in any regional conflict that emerges in the Middle East . . . for a price. At the same time, he has advocated an end to the US purchase of Saudi oil unless Riyadh commits to taking on Daesh.
Some pundits claim the Arab Muslim world would feel more comfortable working with another President Clinton than the “loose cannon” alternative.
There’s no doubt that the vast majority of Egyptians are rooting for Trump; not because they like him or respect him, but simply because Hillary is a hated figure in Egypt due to what Egyptians perceive as her championing of the Brotherhood. Indeed, the former Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El-Haddad was once a Clinton Foundation staffer while the family of her closest aide and friend Huma Abedin is believed to include high profile members of the organization.
During Clinton’s last visit to Cairo and Alexandria some years ago, her motorcade was pelted with eggs and shoes. She has since referred to Egypt as “basically an army dictatorship” despite the fact the country now has an elected president and parliament. As Eric Trager wrote in the Washington Post, “Clinton seems Cairoed out.” When it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood, Trump is on the same page as the Egyptian president and, overall, Republican politicians are more sympathetic to Egypt’s challenges than their Democratic counterparts.
Clinton was a driving force behind President Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya and says she has no regrets. Trump has flip-flopped. After suggesting that the country was better off when Qaddafi was in control—which it definitely was—he later said he would have opted for a surgical assassination of the former Libyan leader.
Trump supporters accuse Clinton of being a warmonger in sheep’s clothing. The Clinton crowd believes Trump presents a danger; someone who cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes, particularly since he allegedly asked one of his advisers why the US can’t actually deploy them. Suspenseful times ahead until America chooses. Whoever is picked, hang on to your hats!
Linda S. Heard is an award-winning British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.