Barack Obama's doctrine may well be no doctrine at all.

Byline: Elie Nasrallah

Summary: Engraved at the entrance of the Parliament building in Canada's capital city of Ottawa are the following words: "Where there is no vision, people perish."AaOne year after Barack Obama's ascendancy to the presidency of the United States, the question on many minds is: Does Obama have a foreign policy vision or "doctrine?"

Engraved at the entrance of the Parliament building in Canada's capital city of Ottawa are the following words: "Where there is no vision, people perish."AaOne year after Barack Obama's ascendancy to the presidency of the United States, the question on many minds is: Does Obama have a foreign policy vision or "doctrine?" AaThe evidence thus far indicates that he does not, that what he has offered up instead is a collection of pragmatic initiatives not cohesively tied together. This shortcoming is particularly flagrant in the president's policies toward the Middle East.

For example, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, with the settlements impasse at their heart, are proving disheartening indeed. The Obama team mismanaged the issue from the start, immensely damaging the credibility of the president and his ability to act as a mediator. Initially, the US backed a full settlement freeze, only to backtrack later. The Israelis have no incentive to make concessions in the absence of American pressure and a broader strategy from Washington to address the issue. In turn, the Palestinians remain divided, disoriented and powerless to influence the American side and impose behavior change on the Israelis.

Writing in The New York Times recently, Thomas Freidman described the status of the so-called peace process in the bluntest of ways: "There is no romance, no sex, no excitement, no urgency -- not even a sense of importance anymore."Aa

Adding insult to injury is the weakness of traditional American regional partners like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Both have been losing ground to new players in the region, which in turn has only undermined the US posture and the effectiveness of US actions. The Saudis and Egyptians used to be the neighborhood enforcers, financially, politically and militarily. With the rise of Iran, however, and more effective non-state actors able to shape the Mideastern agenda, those days appear to be over.

In this context, the ongoing stalemate over Iran's nuclear program is also eroding American regional credibility and influence. There appears to be no more of a clear doctrine for dealing with Iran than there is for addressing the region's other problem spots. The "smart power" that US officials, most prominently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, promised when Obama took office, is going nowhere, and the "pragmatic" approach of the secretary, as well as of envoys George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke, needs rebooting for the US to achieve diplomatic success.

What are the consequences of this absence of doctrine likely to be for the administration? And more importantly, what does it mean for the peoples of the Middle East and the powder keg that is regional power politics?

This dangerous vacuum may lead to one of two scenarios: It may lead to a regional war, which would have incalculably negative consequences on most states. Or it may reawaken the forces of reason and common sense. The first remains a real possibility; the second would require a miracle.

As a result, the greater probability is that trouble lies ahead for the Middle East, and particularly for the weaker states of the region, among them Lebanon, which has been trying to rebuild its national institutions and forge an independent national and foreign policy course beyond the direct influence and dictates of regional powers. With America disoriented, its regional foes have a wider margin of maneuver to advance their interests, particularly Iran, which aspires to a measure of regional hegemony.

The Obama administration's regional shortcomings are also being exacerbated by the international political and financial environment. AaChina is starting to assert its power globally, the US is over-stretched militarily, and the consequences of the global financial crisis of last year, not least the enormous ensuing debt, are all curtailing US effectiveness.

As journalist A. Wess Mitchell recently wrote in The Los Angeles Times: "The latest forecast from the National Intelligence Council, the strategic forecasting unit of the US intelligence community, depicts, by 2025, a world in which US pre-eminence is deeply eroded and in which Washington maintains a decisive edge only in military hardware." In other words Obama will find it increasingly difficult to match means to his policy ends. Gone are the days of the unipolar mindset of the neocons.

Obama has been an effective orator and communicator, but he has been, until now, less successful at applying in practical ways what he has promised the world. If he wants to leave behind a positive legacy, he must move beyond the rhetoric. As his senior adviser David Axelrod once put it, "It's important to communicate what you are doing and why. But without the what and the why, the communication is of little value."

A cohesive foreign policy doctrine would doubtless help explain the whats and the whys. But for now, Obama has failed to provide a clear road map to ensure American success and survival in a dangerous Mideast.

Aa

Elie Nasrallah is a writer and immigration consultant in Ottawa, Canada. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Copyright 2009, The Daily Star. All rights reserved.

Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company