US President Barack Obama, from the podium of UN General Assembly this week, introduced a new US creed of two fundamental aspects: the aspect of the philosophy of group diplomatic and political work determined to adopt dialogue and engagement as the starting point for resolving difficult international issues; and the aspect of informing China primarily, and then Russia and the rest of the world, that the United States has abandoned ambitions of occupying the position of sole superpower in the world, and relinquished the creed of “preemption”, which the George W. Bush Administration had adopted as a strategy to strengthen the position and standing of the US in the world, and which included openly seeking to prevent China from racing against the United States for the monopoly of greatness. The world is still chewing on the idea of the new creed and trying to examine its significance, as it is no simple matter for the US President to inform the world that he has drafted a policy that places the only superpower in the same rank as the remaining great powers. This means that Barack Obama has determined the identity of the US two decades after the end of the Cold War, recognizing the failure of unipolarity and reflecting American modesty, as well as reducing aspiration and fears of the US monopolizing the position of superpower. This will create internal problems for the US President, especially as ideological division is becoming more acute within the United States. Yet at the international level as well, such a “reversal” has shaken current notions, thus shaking the trust of some countries that find in the new US stances a retraction of strategic pledges and promises. Moreover, there are those who fear that Obama's reversal will be misinterpreted, to be considered either a testimony of America's weakness, which might lead some to underestimate and assail it – and perhaps also provoke and assault it, or to be considered a passing and dangerous phase for the US President, because there are within the United States those who radically disagree with this ideology and wish to thwart it. Thus the world watches carefully and fears wagering on the success or failure of the new world order which the new US President is working on. Some are also afraid of the Obama Administration's idealism in times of political worldly skill, such as that practiced by the likes of Israel, Iran, Syria and Russia, and in times of ideological strategies being mapped out by great powers such as China. Obama's speech at the UN podium was long and philosophical, and it met with interest and acclaim in numerous circles, yet it lacked the details which many were expecting, the reason being the carefulness that characterizes the Obama Administration, the desire to please and the resolve to avoid confrontation. His discourse towards Iran and North Korea was strong, as he spoke of “accountability” and of the necessity for the world to stand together “to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced”. He said that “we must insist that the future not belong to fear”, and that the coming year will be “pivotal” for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as it either “will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve”. He spoke with resolve of “nations that refuse to live up to their obligations”, as they “must face consequences”. Speaking of Iran and North Korea, he said that if they “choose to ignore international standards (…) then they must be held accountable”. What the President failed to mention was mentioned either by European heads of state or by the Swedish Foreign Minister speaking for the European Union. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the Iranians “will be making a tragic mistake” if they “rely on a passive response from the international community in order to pursue their military nuclear program”, calling for setting next December as the final deadline for Iran to show progress in talks with the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany over the suspected Iranian nuclear program. Furthermore, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said “let there by no ambiguity: Iran and North Korea must now know that the world will be even tougher on proliferation” and that “we are ready to consider further sanctions”, stressing that the “burden of proof” falls on the shoulders of the countries suspected of setting up nuclear programs. Even Russia is speaking the language of sanctions, and one member of the Russian delegation to the General Assembly did not rule out “taking part in working out new decisions by the UN Security Council concerning sanctions”, which led the White House spokesperson to say that the intention showed by Russia to play a constructive role in the Iranian nuclear issue is “extremely important”. However, what was most prominent in the stance expressed by the European Union through Sweden's Foreign Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt was what he said about the internal situation in Iran, while the US President avoided making any such indication. Reinfeldt said that “as a friend of the people of Iran, we are concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation and the violent crackdown of popular protests”. He added that “the Iranian nuclear issue represents a major challenge to international peace and security (and) to regional stability” and that Iran must “regain the trust of the international community, comply with relevant Security Council resolutions and contribute to peace in the Middle East”. Over the Palestinian-Israeli issue as well, the European stance was outspoken in criticizing Israel's violations and in demanding that it do what it should do: “as a friend of the people of Israel, we tell the Israeli Government to reach out for peace; to end occupation; to respect international law; to work for a two-state solution; to immediately end all settlement activities on occupied land, including in East Jerusalem; and to end the isolation of Gaza”. The US President, for his part, did not mention the necessity of respecting international law when he spoke of Israel, but made sure to correct a mistake he committed during the tripartite meeting that brought him together with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when he spoke of “restraining” settlement-building activity. He said before the General Assembly that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”, and that the time had come to return to “negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem”, asserting the establishment of a Palestinian state “that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people” alongside “a Jewish State of Israel, with true security”. He demanded that “Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians” and that the Palestinians cease their “vitriolic attacks” against the Israelis and “recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security”. The Palestinian-Israeli issue represents an important test for the US President, as does the Iranian issue. The Obama Administration may have good intentions, but its method of achieving peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis is heaped with the Netanyahu government's determination to play the game of “scoring points” in front of the media and in the eyes of the US Administration in an extremely childish manner, strengthening itself with a powerful lobby, a forgiving media and worldly skill at the art of eluding the serious requirements of peace. Indeed, the Netanyahu government does not want to seriously engage in negotiations with the Palestinians. It may want to divert the attention again by reviving the idea of giving negotiations with Syria the priority, yet also to waste time at the expense of negotiations with the Palestinians. Furthermore, the Netanyahu government may find in Obama's ideology and philosophy ammunition to turn pressures towards him. Indeed, it behaves on the basis that Israel is an internal US matter, and that it has the right to hold an opinion over the US's position and standing in the world. And because the Netanyahu government wants to make use of the Iranian issue, it will find useful material for itself in Obama's conciliatory style, based on dialogue then dialogue and later gradual sanctions. Iran's government, for its part, will not help Obama in his efforts, because its understanding, its creed and its ideology are in contradiction with his understanding, his creed and his ideology. The US President addressed the world for the podium of the United Nations, saying that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation”. The Iranian regime, on the other hand, is determined to impose its domination in Lebanon, in Iraq and on Palestine, going through several Gulf States and reaching up to Yemen – domination through weapons, fear, havoc, terror, violence and the use of militias, not through enticement and persuasion. Russia may be speaking a different language, but it will be – as it seems today – arrogant and to a certain extent full of itself. Indeed, Russian leadership interprets the policy of the Obama Administration as a correction and nearly an apology for the policy of the George W. Bush Administration. Yet at the end of the day, there is no permanent trust between Russia and the United States. Thus Russia will play its cards skillfully and with little willingness to embrace the new American philosophy, and will take each step very carefully, to measure it against its bilateral and strategic interests. Indeed, Russia considers that the Obama Administration is helping it regain its standing, which was laid to waste by the United States when its policies contributed to dismantling Russian greatness by dismantling the Soviet Union. China too will not speak the language of the new creed except in as much as it benefits it. Indeed, China is in the process of strengthening its economic capabilities, oil relations and standing in greatness, after the greatness of the US has collapsed. This is why it will like the new language, will make use of the call for group work and will welcome burying the creed of “preemption”. But it will not, for its part, achieve a reversal or a revolution the way the United States has.
