The specter of US midterm elections will accompany President Barack Obama when he spends about five days in New York next week to address delicate international issues and important bilateral relations with the leaders of countries participating in the Millennium Development Goals summit at the United Nations. Some regional issues will intersect with the midterm elections in terms of affecting the US President's situation at the level of global impression he makes, his domestic situation and his future in the White House. Among such delicate issues is that of Sudan, one towards which fears have been increasing after the start of the countdown of a hundred days until the date of the referendum to decide on the fate of the South and its potential secession. Indeed, the US Administration has escalated at both the level of enticement diplomacy and of threatening with sanctions and perhaps with intervention, if the situation deteriorates in the South or if the Sudanese government evades its commitment to the referendum. Next week Barack Obama will take part in a meeting called for by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the level of heads of state of UN Security Council members and of neighboring countries to address the issue of Sudan. Of course, he is aware that he is being monitored by US humanitarian organizations and the Christian Right, who will hold him accountable for any step he takes, a crucial matter for him during the elections period. Moreover, there is, of course, the issue of resuming negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israeli, which will also move to New York next week in a round sponsored by Barack Obama. These negotiations are of the utmost importance for the US President, who has sent his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton along with his Special Envoy Senator George Mitchell to participate in them, in order to reach understandings over the two issues of borders and security, as a key to putting an end to settlement-building and establishing the state of Palestine alongside that of Israel. The benefits of these negotiations succeeding are quite evident. Their failure, on the other hand, would come at a high cost for everyone, including the US President who has wagered on these negotiations as part of a strategy to redefine the Middle East. This is where the issue of Iran and its extreme importance emerge, whether in case of the failure of the “Obamist” enticement diplomacy and it ending up forced into confrontation with additional sanctions, or in case of its success and it ending with the “Grand Bargain”, the content and trade-offs of which are unknown. Indeed, Iran will be present in New York next week, not just in the bilateral and group talks of the major powers at the Security Council, but also through Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the surprises expected of him. Iraq will be absent yet ever-present. Lebanon will be the object of questions and fears over its future, on the one hand as a result of the proxy wars being waged on its soil, and on the other in case justice takes its course in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to try those responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and his companions, as well as the political assassinations connected to that of Hariri that followed. In all three issues – Iran, Iraq and Lebanon – Barack Obama remains at the core because US policy is being put to the test and is under close observation – yet it is not the only one to be under observation. Iran in particular remains at the forefront of the interests of the leaders of the major powers and of the Middle East. The issue of Iran will also be present in the bilateral meetings of the leaders of China, Russia, the United States and France at the highest levels, especially after the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that Iran was not cooperating fully, and pointed to its resolve to moving forward towards obtaining nuclear arms capabilities. Iran will also be present in bilateral meetings held by Arab leaders with the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council, especially the United States. Indeed, the sanctions that have been imposed require a great deal of cooperation from Iran's neighbors in the Gulf region, especially the United Arab Emirates. United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice spoke this week of Iranian violations of UN Resolutions, not just at the nuclear level but also by exporting weapons and developing ballistic missiles. Russian diplomacy, whose relations with Tehran have become tense, still seeks to lighten the mood and contain the anger. It is thus walking a tight rope between preserving Russia's interests in Iran and upholding Russia's dignity within the framework of this relationship. Similarly, China is moving forward with “consensus” among the five major powers over the decision to implement the sanctions adopted by the Security Council three months ago, but is concerned about its bilateral relations, especially as its oil interests are channeled with Iran's strong men – men from the Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) coming out of Tehran. They speak of an internally obstructed state, led by a barren soviet ideology and run by the interests of military industries; one with limited resources, whose relations with its Arab neighbors are at their worst, and which has become a military state, not “a dictatorship run by religious clerics” as it is said. Those coming out of Tehran say that the guiding principle of the regional ambitions held by Iran's military rulers is enmity towards the US. Yet this alone does not make it qualified for regional leadership or for shaping the regional order, regardless of the instruments of destruction it gathers for itself, especially when faced with the powerlessness besieging Iran from within and from without, through the opposition movement and the Reformists or through the sanctions. Noteworthy among what those coming out of Tehran bring is their saying that most of the Iranian people have become “secularists” due to the failure of the state based on religion. They say that it is the Islamic revolution that has made people turn to secularism. They say that Iranians today are more secular than the Turks – which may be true in view of the results of the recent referendum in Turkey. They say that there are signs of the beginning of the end for the “Islamic Republic” in Iran. A few senior veterans of the US political institution considered a while ago that there was no need for the United States to adopt a strategy towards Iran because the Iranian structure under the Islamic Republic had the ability for “self-destruction” due to the nature of the regime itself. They compared it to the regime in Cuba, which the US could destroy in 20 minutes if it so wished, but which it has decided not to, because maintaining the Cuban regime repeatedly leads to crushing the legitimacy of communism in Latin America. It is the same with Iran. The benefit of its regime remaining, without a strategy for confrontation, is that it is useful on the path to depriving political Islam of legitimacy. Its benefit is that it is useful for selling US weapons in unprecedented deals. It is useful for the Israelis because it allows them to proclaim Iran an imminent threat to their existence, and to thus enjoy support and funding, and vice versa. The Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) as well needs the Arab-Israeli conflict to go on, so that it may sponsor proxy wars in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and so that it may recruit and mobilize its ranks, despite the fact that the Iranian people are growing to hate the Palestinian cause because of the way the regime pushes it on them. During this transitional period, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been excluded from the Palestinian-Israeli issue through resuming direct negotiations, with US sponsorship and in complete coordination with the heads of the Quartet for the Middle East, which includes the European Union, the United Nations and Russia alongside the United States. If these negotiations were to collapse, this would endanger not only the Palestinians but also Jordan, in view of Israel's intentions, as well as Lebanon, as a result of the enemy players meeting over using it as an arena for proxy wars. When Barack Obama comes to New York and meets with Arab leaders, they will probably not discuss, as a priority, their fears of Lebanon turning into an arena for proxy wars, this because each side has its own priorities based on its national interests. And because Lebanon is politically divided in a radical manner, the US President and his team must pay heed to what it would mean to turn Lebanon into an arena for igniting proxy wars, and to the impact this would have not just on Lebanon, located between Israel and Syria, but also on the general impression of US policy under Obama. He must not become the president who purposely or by negligence sacrificed the nearly sole free country in the Arab region because he was in the process of striking deals great or small with players who have a vested interest in waging their proxy wars in the Lebanese arena. Thus if the US President is determined to resolve the Palestinian issue fairly and to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as to convince Iran of accepting the “carrot” and the incentives package that includes guarantees of preserving the regime, to drive Sudan towards holding the referendum, and to work for international cooperation against piracy in Somalia, he must not forget what might seem small in strategic considerations. Sudan is as important in the formulas of “impression” as are Lebanon and Iraq. Arab public opinion will not accept the idea of Southern Sudan seceding, and it will not remember that it was the Sudanese government under Omar Bashir that agreed to the secession referendum in 2005 when it was weak and endangered, striking the deal in order to remain in power. This is why the Barack Obama Administration must be alert and ready to explain the facts, so as not to be blamed for dividing Sudan when the fact is that the plan of holding a referendum over the future of the South was ratified under George W. Bush and with the approval of the Sudanese government. There is a nearly spontaneous readiness to lay the blame on the United States regardless of the sitting administration in the White House. The Barack Obama Administration is under tremendous pressure, because it came to power with extraordinary expectations and because it has not so far produced extraordinary results. It is under observation and being held to account. And that is the most difficult situation for any administration to find itself in: observation and accountability, domestically and internationally. The summit to review and achieve the “Millennium Development Goals” and the 65th session of the UN General Assembly are an opportunity to review accounts and to be wary of consequences. What world leaderships, including Middle Eastern leaderships, should bear in mind is to take the impact of their policies into account and to bear their responsibilities, during a decisive phase of US history which has brought to power an unusual man named Barack Hussein Obama.
