Bologna Institute for Policy Research Via Belmeloro, 11 - Bologna (Italy) +39 051 292 7811 www.bipr.eu Date: 2 February 2015 Date: 12 March 2015 Speaker: Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of and Emirates Chair in Contemporary Middle Eastern Studies, the London School of Economics and Political Sciences, U.K. Chair: Raffaella A. Del Sarto, Adjunct Professor of Studies and International Relations, Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe; Sanam Vakil, Adjunct Professor of Middle East Studies, Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe

“US Policy in Flux: Withdrawal or Reengagement?” Part of the International Relations of the Middle East Series

Professor Fawaz Gerges discusses American foreign policy in the context of the Middle East and specifically in regard to ISIS and other recent developments in the region. Gerges begins by discussing the worldview of President Barack Obama and how this view shapes his approach to the region. Gerges then applies Obama’s approach, as well as American foreign policy as a whole, to recent events throughout the Middle East including in Iraq, Israel, and Libya, and Iran. He concludes by grading Obama’s foreign policy performance and poses a number of conceptual questions that frame his inquiry into American foreign policy as a whole.

Gerges begins his analysis of the Obama approach to the Middle East by stating that many pundits are “a bit unfair to Obama.” Since taking office, Obama has never said that he subscribes to the liberal view of international relations. Instead, he compares himself to Bush Sr. and JFK as holding a realist view. For Obama, realism means “understanding the limits of U.S. foreign policy and avoiding unnecessary risks in the international system”. This view, in turn, is the driving factor in his view towards the Middle East.

This position may be illustrated by analyzing Obama’s response to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obama is well-versed and knowledgeable about the ongoing conflict and has come to view it as a serious fault line. At the beginning of his term Obama did attempt to pursue an “ambitious foreign policy agenda” in the Middle East and specifically in regards to Israel and Palestine. When Obama faced resistance to this agenda, though, he backed away. Gerges states that the political and bureaucratic system as a whole, including Israel and its allies, “was the independent variable, the driver behind Obama’s retreat.” While the US would like to bridge the divide between Israelis and Palestinians, such a feat would require a significant investment of political capital. In Obama’s past three confrontations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he was unable or unwilling to invest this capital and hence “lost” three times. In Gerges’ opinion, this underscores that the Middle East is not a high priority for Obama.

Gerges continues by speaking about the and how, particularly during the Egyptian crisis, Obama’s hand was forced and he was compelled to take action. Egypt has historically been a critical state and, during the Arab Spring, the US military played a key role in convincing the Egyptian military to not fire on protestors. When listening to Obama’s speeches beyond the rhetoric, there was no mention of a major investment in helping transitional Arab societies. According to Gerges, it was a good idea for Obama to avoid taking ownership of the Arab Spring and, in fact, nobody expected either the United States nor Europe to do so. It was however expected that both powers would help alleviate the abysmal conditions that existed after the revolutions.

This hands-off approach by the U.S. has become especially discernible with regard to Syria, Iraq, and ISIS. Obama has come under immense pressure from both the right and left over the past four years to intervene against ISIS. Further, Egypt, , and other Middle Eastern countries have placed pressure on him as well. Gerges explains that the reason why Obama has not acted in Syria is because he believes American vital interests are not involved and major consequences could stem from American interference.

One area where Obama has been consistent, though, is in regards to Iran. Despite pressure to do the opposite, he has worked towards ending the “state of institutionalized hostilities” and has avoided a military confrontation, including a potential Israeli attack. Gerges explains that Obama’s Iran efforts are the equivalent of Nixon’s opening to China and are aimed at preventing the country from developing a nuclear bomb. This is an issue, unlike others in the Middle East, where Obama believes that American interests are involved and there is no viable military option.

Gerges concludes by rating Obama’s performance on foreign policy in the Middle East and offering conceptual questions that frame American foreign policy going forward. First, in regards to Syria, Gerges rates Obama’s policy as C- because he did not intervene militarily or do much at all to alleviate the conflict. In the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Obama earns a B- and for Iraq a C, although the grade could change to an A if Iraq and local powers could pull together. Finally, Gerges gives Obama a conditional A- on Iran - if and when he manages to put an end to the Iranian nuclear problem. After having offered this assessment, Gerges challenges the audience to consider if it is even possible to evaluate the Obama legacy without situating such legacy in the context of a relative decline of America in the international system.

2