New York-The strategy of the twin tracks adopted by the US Administration to deal with the various issues, from Iran to Afghanistan and even with the Taliban, may be a clear policy in the mind of President Barack Obama and in the minds of the leaders of his administration, especially the academics among them. Yet this does not negate a noteworthy state of affairs, which is what this strategy has produced in terms of reducing trust in the United States, increasing the confusion regarding what this administration has in mind, and escalating the fear from wagering on this superpower – one which is heading towards isolationism in times of globalization, and whose hegemony as a superpower is receding while the likes of China fill the vacuum at the international level and the likes of Iran and the Taliban seek to impose a de facto situation at the regional level. It is a crisis of standing which is arousing concern at the global level, because of what it involves in terms of messages signifying that anyone can climb the American wall, which has become so low. The matter is not limited to heads of state such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who have tried, and will try again, to make light of the Obama Administration's demands, borrowing from its electoral campaign a phrase they can use: “yes we can”. Indeed, those who make light of the US today include Pakistani youths of the likes of Faisal Shahzad, accused of the attempt to bomb Times Square, the son of a high-ranking pilot in the Pakistani Air Force, the young man who immigrated to the United States, got married and was living between Connecticut and Pakistan. They include, according to US stock exchange observers, those who shift the stock exchange by hundreds of points, and in fact a thousand points, in a message warning of the destruction of the American and global economy, one entitled “yes we can”. Those are new players and it is therefore difficult to predict what assets they might hold. The greatest fear is that of the like of the Times Square bomber being like a sleeping army, spread out in different places and ready to awaken and activate spontaneously or automatically. The fear is from the strategy of the twin tracks being misunderstood to the extent of consuming the carrot and breaking the stick at once, based on the presumption that the United States of America in the age of “Obamism” will not fight, will not pressure, will not take risks and will not produce surprises. This is exactly what could make such an assumption misplaced, because “Obamism” takes pride in its ability on twin tracks of a different kind: patience and perseverance on one track, and leaping to surprises on the other. However, and even if the wager on the Barack Obama Administration brings the pleasant surprise of the success of the twin tracks, it would be preferable for this administration to take the initiative of closely examining the dangers of laxity and self-confidence, at a time when trust in it is deteriorating. It would be preferable for it to reveal some of its scenarios “in case” its current policies fail to produce the desired results. It would be preferable for it to stop pretending, with policies that signify that it is a more ethical administration. Indeed, political realism in the age of “Obamism” places it on the same rank as previous administrations, which have practiced such realism to the same extent of “forgoing” the allies of the past or the partners of the future. Indeed, it has in effect forgone the reformists in Iran and its pledges towards Darfur in Sudan, and it is in the process of striking deals with the regime in Tehran, which seeks to export the revolution of the Islamic Republic, as it is in the midst of driving those concerned in Afghanistan and Pakistan to deals with the Taliban, their only precondition not being to stop oppressing women of course, but rather to sever ties with Al-Qaeda, as if severing such ties was subject to clear standards. To begin with, Iran has tentacles spreading into the depth of the Barack Obama Administration's position of weakness, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, where this administration wants the duality of “staying and leaving”, in a strategy that has made it feel that it was in dire need of Tehran to facilitate staying in and leaving Iraq, and perhaps also Afghanistan. Concluding the necessity of such a need is wrong, because it is an assessment that ignores the fact that Iran is the one which is in need of partnership in the strategy of the US staying in and leaving Iraq. Indeed, the Islamic Republic of Iran is nervous, in its Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) aspect as well as in that of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and those between the two of the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is nervous because of its understanding, which is deeper than the superficial US interpretation, of the patience of reformists inside Iran and of the meaning of the popular uprising in Iran. It is so nervous that it fears any US withdrawal from Iraq which would leave its important neighbor in a state of chaos and an outbreak of instability. There are secret talks taking place behind the scenes between the Americans and the Iranians over the issue of Iraq, and perhaps over other regional issues alongside that of containing “violent Islamic extremism” in different parts of the world, most prominently Afghanistan. There are talks parallel to what has been put forth by the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany with the leaders of the Iranian government on the nuclear issue, the latest having taken place around a dinner table by an invitation from Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki at the residence quarters of the Iranian ambassador in New York. What is unclear is the margin of trade-offs at the US level and the margin of maneuver at the Iranian level. Such a margin will remain floating as long as the essential question, the answer to which must be understood, remains: what does Iran want? If it wants to be a nuclear power, then the same question would be asked yet again: for what purpose? If the military purpose is mere “deterrence”, as Israel claims its own purpose to be even as it avoids admitting its possession of a nuclear arsenal, the answer would then reach the purpose of regional hegemony, or at least of positioning itself within the Iranian-Israeli-Turkish regional balance of power. If the George W. Bush Administration gave Iraq on a silver platter to Iran when it waged the war on terror through it and against it, militarily undermining it in the regional balance of power, then the Barack Obama Administration is taking the risk of consolidating Iranian hegemony on the Gulf region and beyond, if it walks in the footsteps of laxity with Iran on the issue of Iraq as on the nuclear issue. Iraq must not take second place in the ranking of US priorities merely because the administration is engrossed today in Afghanistan and in the issue of Iran. There are Saudi-US-Iranian-Syrian-Gulf talks over the Iraqi issue, and there are perhaps understandings over selecting a Prime Minister who would not be from among the big winners in the latest elections. What is important is for the Barack Obama Administration not to lose the threads of trust in it in Iraq, because Iraq is highly important in itself, and because it is an important indication about the attempts towards regional reassurance in the name of which leaders, players, equations and directions are being sacrificed in other important places, among them Lebanon, where understandings and players are being put to the test. The Iranian element, as important as it is, is not the only point where the US Administration is being tested in the region. The element of dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli issue is also a test for the Obama Administration. So are the approach to and the quality of the US-Syrian relationship, which in turn extends from Iraq to the issue of terrorism, and up to the Special Tribunal for the prosecution of those implicated in political assassinations in Lebanon, most prominently the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, and to the military supplies to Hezbollah and Palestinian militias working in Lebanon. One of the most important obstacles to developing the US-Syrian relationship is Damascus's insistence on not relinquishing the “asset” of Palestinian factions that challenge not just Lebanese sovereignty but also the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Damascus is cooperating in Iraq, and it has delivered several “rounds” there by “preventing” extremist groups from “infiltrating” Iraq to carry out terrorist acts. Washington is not pleased with Damascus's method of dealing with it one round at a time and it insists that the Syrian leadership should cease its attempts to dwarf the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, Palestinian militias undermining Lebanese sovereignty might not be at the top of the US's priorities, but sophisticated weapons continuing to cross over to Hezbollah is what has aroused Washington's anger. In fact, it has revealed a tremendous flaw within the US Administration and has raised further doubts and misgivings over trust in it, as it places one foot here and one foot there, and “another foot in its mouth”, as in the American expression. Whatever happened to the man who stormed the international scene as an astounding US President “walking confidently like a king”, when he spoke of justice as a moral compass everywhere, from Sudan to Lebanon? Whatever happened to that handsome black man who gave a speech in Cairo that aroused the admiration of many believers around the world, who today has become the object of anger and disappointment? Political realism happened, perhaps. Or perhaps the world is not as patient as Barack Obama. It may be too soon to judge “Obamism”, yet it is necessary to pay heed to the consequences of trust in it shrinking in a manner leading to erosion from which a surprise, no matter how colossal, will not save it. The complaints of those who had raised Barack Obama as a banner and a “flag” of their own are premature and might be greatly exaggerated, yet in turn they reflects the fragility of “Obamism”, as it seems to them weak and frightened, jumping between the twin tracks with ambivalence and forgoing pledges. Meanwhile, those who oppose “Obamism” to begin with consider that the strategy of the twin tracks is nothing but submission to those who would seize that carrot and consume it while breaking the stick and making it void. And those are not just the leadership in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also those who today reach Times Square in a dangerous migration to the North which in turn strikes at the very heart of “Obamism”.
