A recent opinion poll in the United States by a reputable polling group showed thirty-five per cent of the respondents defining President Barack Obama as being the “worst president since the end of World War Two in 1945.” Many of the President’s most fervent supporters will have felt disappointed that this is the current fate of the first black holder of the office.
It is probably the case that perceptions of the President’s rating rest heavily on his conduct of the international affairs of the United States, Obama having been sometimes portrayed as hesitant and indecisive in dealing with the variety of troubles now characterizing many parts of the world. This is the case particularly in respect of events in the Middle East, and in relation to the contention occurring between the Europeans and Russia over developments relating to the fate of the Ukraine, which was part, in the era of the Cold War, of the Soviet Union.
Undoubtedly, it is the present situation in the Middle East, vis-à-vis Obama’s long-stated determination not to get embroiled by way of using American troops in that area that are contributing to present low perceptions of his standing.
Not long ago, there was much hostility, exploited by the Republican Party, to his decision to attempt a process of diplomacy vis-à-vis the Western powers’ belief that Iran is determined to build a nuclear weapons arsenal. And the stance of the Government of Israel, said to have an influence on American public opinion as a result of the historical experiences of the Jewish people, has been such as to seek to ensure that the American people would act as a break on any attempt at what the Israelis would define as appeasement of Iran.
Supporters of this view have gone as far as suggesting that part of the troubles in the Middle East are due to the now famous ‘Arab Spring’ speech which Obama gave in Egypt soon after his election in May of 2011, during the period of rule of then President Hosni Mubarak, in which he suggested that there was an awakening in the region pointing in the direction of a yearning for democracy and greater freedom of expression.
The speech seemed to have irked not only the then Egyptian leadership, but also the monarchist regime in Saudi Arabia and its allies. That Mubarak was soon overthrown by the military itself, which then permitted presidential elections that saw the emergence of the long-banned Muslim Brotherhood, did not lead to any sympathy for Obama’s stance. And observers have not been surprised that the post-Mubarak army leadership of Egypt, now the de jure civilian leadership of the country, has not really paid much heed to American diplomatic sentiment about the domestic political direction in which Egypt should go.
Events in Egypt after the transfer of power to the Muslim Brotherhood seem to have also had a negative effect, as far as Obama’s diplomacy is concerned, on the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most fervent Arab ally of the United States in times past. And the concern of Saudi leadership has been increased by the President’s decision to initiate negotiations with Iran over their alleged preparations to develop a nuclear weapons capability. The decision created, in effect, a kind of de facto anti-American alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, resulting in the necessity for Obama to spend time creating a defence of his position against critics, including in the US Congress.
The President will have been well aware that public sentiment in the US vis-à-vis Israel is such that even appearances of antagonism, or lack of American willingness to support Israeli policy on issues relating to the Middle East, can have negative public opinion responses. No president since Dwight Eisenhower in respect of the British-French-Israeli attack on Egypt (including occupation of the Suez Canal), has had such support from the American people in relation to the Middle East. And indeed, subsequent American presidents have been careful to fly in the face of, in particular, Israeli objections to US policy in the Middle East.
It would appear, however, that initial Israeli objections to Obama’s diplomatic démarche vis-à-vis Iran have had to be muted in the face of what have appeared to be positive Iranian responses to US-European entreaties. In turn this has muted negative responses in the United States, particularly from congressional supporters of Israel. And in addition, it has seemed that Syria has, so far, been keeping its side of the bargain with respect to the transfer of chemical weapons as agreed with the NATO powers and Russia.
In addition it has seemed that the ongoing American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the election process now taking place, will allow the President to fulfil his promise of an effective withdrawal from that country. And critics of his policy vis-à-vis Egypt seem to have muted their opposition as there now seems to be no alternative that they can support with respect to renewed military rule there.
So the President would, in recent times, seem to have been having a recess from Congressional and other criticism but, it appears, not for long. For the rise of ISIS in Syria, and the pressure that they have put on the government in Iraq, have made his position look somewhat tenuous, giving his opponents and critics grist for the mill once again.
The President’s proud boast since his election to office has been that he has successfully withdrawn American troops from Iraq. As withdrawal proceeded, his Republican opponents have felt embarrassed to have argued against the American peoples’ relief from what has been defined as an unpopular war. In addition, complementary to the apparently improving relationship with Iran on the nuclear issue, has been the rise of what has seemed to be a mutually beneficial relationship in respect of both United States and Iranian support for the regime in Iraq.
Both countries would appear to have been satisfied not to rustle diplomatic feathers by confronting the Iraqi leadership over their treatment of the Sunni section of the country’s population since the removal of Saddam Hussein. But now the rise of ISIS and similar forces, ranging from their involvement in the Syrian civil war, has put the Iraqi leadership, and indeed the integrity of Iraq as a state, in jeopardy.
What once appeared as Obama’s success in diminishing the public opinion effect of the Iraq issue in the United States, now would seem to be in difficulty. The US committing even minimal amounts of troops to Iraq again, might well seem to the American people to be the reopening of a sore that was apparently closed. And this must now be one of the elements showing its effects on the President’s standing in the polls at this time.
To some it may well seem as if the Iraqi wheel is coming full circle. To which might be added a concern among the President’s critics about what appears to be an incipient alliance between Iran and the US in a new combined religious and ethnicity conflict.
