Two years ago, Barack Obama addressed himself from Cairo to Arabs and Muslims. He spoke of democracy and of encouraging it in the Middle East. The US President appeared to be dreaming that day, as our region has a long track record in resisting democracy and the winds of change. The president then was Hosni Mubarak, and he was obviously undecided between mandate renewal and bequeathal. It never occurred to him that he would have a different fate. The Tunisian president then was Zine el Abidine bin Ali, and no one dared at the time take to the streets of Tunisia and address the president with the lethal word: “Leave!”. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was a happy resident in the Jamahiriyya he had created, with his son Seif al-Islam wearing the clothes of renewal and modernization, and complaining about the “old guard”. Yemen enjoyed quasi-stability under the rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, if we exclude the wars with the Huthis, and al-Qaeda. It used to be said that the president had not tired yet, despite his lengthy stay at the difficult helm of this difficult country, and that his son would not hesitate to shoulder responsibility if called to do so. Syria used to believe that the new US President would need to associate himself with it because of the numerous papers it had gathered in previous years. At the time, Syria would never have thought that the winds would blow from the inside and have a hard impact on its international relations and some of its regional relations. When Obama chose to address himself to the Middle East from the US Defense Department, the situation was different in several countries that used to enjoy stability the day he made his famous Cairo speech. The US President appeared to be trying to offer a policy that would adjust to the winds that blew on the region and that affect it. His speech was keen on associating the principles he has supported since his election with the broad US interests in the region. Obama began his speech by pointing at the importance given by the United States to the Middle East and North Africa in terms of economy, security, history, and faith. This practically means oil, the safe flow of supply, and the freedom of trade, development, and investment. It also means peace, the guarantees of security, coexistence, mutual acknowledgement, the guarantee of political rights, and the fight against the factors that escalate hatred and terrorism. Also, this implies opening the doors of hope before the young generations that the communications revolution contributed to make a partner in their countries' fate, as well as an observer. It can be said that the content of Obama's speech was expected: promises of economic support to the two nascent democracies in Tunisia and Egypt; insistence to see Libya rid of Muammar Gaddafi; reminding President Ali Abdullah Saleh of the necessity of his commitment to his promise to transfer power; raising the dialogue ceiling with President Bashar al-Assad without shutting the door completely. Obama candidly repeated what a US official had said two days ago, namely that the Syrian president must choose between leading the reform process or stepping down. The tone used to address Syria represents an escalation in the US stance, particularly regarding the repeated accusations made against the Syrian authority on obtaining Iranian assistance to quell the protests. The US president's speech gives the impression that the crisis between Damascus and Washington threatens to escalate, and that Syria could face European measures or international steps that impose some isolation. Thus is born a hotspot in the Middle East with a gravity that could surpass what is taking place in Libya and Yemen due to its ability to affect the climates of the entire region. With regard to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the repetition of the general principles did not conceal the fact that Obama failed to achieve any progress in this crucial dossier. It is noteworthy that the Obama administration, which assured the opposition to the isolation of Israel, welcomes today a visitor who succeeded in killing any hopes for peace, i.e. Benjamin Netanyahu. It is obvious that Obama sent messages in different directions with varying degrees of candidness and persistence. What is certain is that the United States is attempting to build a policy to sponsor the winds of change in the Middle East. The most dangerous thing in the current US president is his ability to cooperate with Europe and control Russian and Chinese sensitivities. Hence, those who received his messages must take them seriously.
