July 25th, 2008 by Amanda

The Economist considers the recent changes of the Bush Administration’s Middle East policy to be less of a pivot and more of an absolute U-turn, and calls for more of the same. As its attitude toward Iran has shifted from “axis of evil” rhetoric to one of limited yet active diplomacy, President Bush ought to now engage Syria in “the same guarded flexibility that he is now showing towards Iran.” If the US is beginning a complete about face, then what about “the final half turn?” The Economist suggests that Bush “cannot make up in months for his years of neglect of Palestine. But he could do his successor a favour” and “help the next man make a quicker start.”

At National Interest Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett elaborate on the opening that the US has suddenly created with Iran, and the possible dangers if Bush closes in too quickly by imposing its two-week deadline for the halting of Iran’s uranium enrichment. They comment that the Administration’s historically hard-line approach of disengagement has “not only imposed opportunity costs on American interests in the Middle East—by foregoing the possibility of better relations with a key regional actor—but also hardened Iranian perceptions that the United States is unwilling to live with the Islamic Republic.”

And then comes Iraq. Fouad Ajami at US News provides an interesting perspective on the future of US presence and its security agreements with Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi government.

Posted in Diplomacy, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, US foreign policy |