In the past six months, a number of polling firms have asked citizens of the rest of the world about their preferences in the US presidential election, and the consensus - perhaps unsurprisingly - is an overwhelming one. The Gallup World Poll found voters in 71 of 73 countries preferred Barack Obama; the BBC found support for Obama in all 22 countries surveyed. But recently Obama's support has been at its lowest in Arab and Islamic countries, where most respondents indicated they expected US relations with the world would remain unchanged. Conventional wisdom among many Arab and Muslim commentators would suggest that Obama's foreign policy will represent a continuation of the last eight years.
This scepticism is unwarranted. The historic election of Barack Hussein Obama as America's 44th president will indeed inaugurate a sea change in America's foreign policy, and nowhere more than in the Middle East and the greater Muslim world, where Obama's approach will be radically different from that of George W Bush, in style as well as substance. Obama is no pacifist, and he will not turn American foreign policy away from a defence of perceived American interests in the region, to be sure. But he possesses a deep commitment to dialogue and diplomacy - and a healthy scepticism about wielding brute force to resolve differences and conflicts with adversaries. "I'm not opposed to all wars," he said in his now-famous 2002 speech against the invasion of Iraq. "I'm opposed to dumb wars."
That same speech laid out a realist case against the war in Iraq, which Obama presciently predicted would "require a US occupation of undetermined length, of undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." There is a vast intellectual divide that separates the Bush Doctrine - which embraced preventive war against countries perceived to be potential threats - and Obama's emphasis on partnership and multilateralism.
Obama put it succinctly in a Democratic debate in 2007: "The Obama Doctrine is not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated... That means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours."
Asked more than a year ago, in a debate with fellow Democratic presidential candidates, if he would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, he answered, "I would... And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire."
A tête-à-tête with the loathed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Had Obama lost his mind? The rookie senator from Illinois uttered the unthinkable and many commentators claimed his answer would swiftly unravel his presidential bid. We were told that the "ultraliberal" senator did not understand the national mood, and underestimated American resolve to confront its enemies. The country of George W Bush was not ready for appeasement.
Showing steel nerves, Obama reiterated his commitment to talk with America's foes. As it turns out, neither pundits nor Obama's opponents understood the country's hunger for fundamental change in domestic and international politics. Obama's genius lies in nourishing that desire for a return to political realism, if not enlightened liberalism, in foreign affairs. Seven years after the onset of the costly global War on Terror, America is in the mood for normalcy, military de-escalation, and diplomatic engagement. Americans now realise that their country's foreign policy has been hijacked by a small group of ideologues and social engineers. Time and again Obama reminded Americans of the Bush legacy: tarnishing the country's standing in the world and making more foes than friends.
We can see Obama's priorities by assessing four key issues facing his new administration: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Iraq, Obama breaks with both Bush and McCain by insisting that the new mission of the military will be to bring the war in Iraq to an orderly end. Although Obama's plan will leave a residual force in Iraq, he has repeated again and again that there will be no permanent military bases.
The question is not whether he will disengage from Iraq, but how swiftly he can carry out his pledge. Obviously, Obama will face resistance from some in the military - and perhaps even some of his own hawkish advisers - to delay withdrawal, backed by doomsday warnings about violence erupting after an American exit. Once he enters the White House, institutional pressures and constraints will complicate his expressed desire to end the war in Iraq.
But neither Obama nor America can afford to stay the Bush course in Iraq. For Obama it would be political suicide: his progressive base was energised by his opposition to the war, and primary voters punished his rival Hillary Clinton for her vote authorising the invasion. Facing the greatest financial crisis since the Depression, America spends $10 billion a month in Iraq. Both Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden, have indicated their top priorities are to stabilise and strengthen the economy and to put an end to the costly adventure in Iraq. Obama appealed to voters' economic anxieties by drawing a connection between financial stabilisation and war spending.
"When it comes to keeping the country safe, we don't have to choose between retreating from the world and fighting and spending $10 billion in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a huge surplus," Obama said in a recent speech in Florida. Obama has already laid out his rationale for pulling out of Mesopotamia: Afghanistan and the lawless tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border, not Iraq, are the central front in the War on Terror. But he has, at times, lumped the Taliban and al Qa'eda together while calling for a shift in US resources to defeat them both.
There is a real danger that the Obama presidency, unless level-headed advisers prevail, could find itself embroiled in a prolonged and costly conflict in the Afghan-Pakistan theatre. Obama has said that he would send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan and would seek greater contributions (with fewer restrictions) from Nato allies. He also threatened to sanction counter-terrorism operations inside Pakistan if the authorities do not secure their border with Afghanistan and crack down on terrorist camps. But one hopes Obama's declarations have been intended to demonstrate his toughness and resolve, and are not ironclad commitments: there is no military solution in Afghanistan or Pakistan, as Pentagon chiefs now acknowledge.
Al Qa'eda has recently gained limited traction along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan by virtue of its close collaboration with the Taliban, who have recently deployed al Qa'eda-style suicide attacks with deadly effect. But the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan is much broader and more complex, pitting a formidable coalition of Pashtun tribesmen on both sides of the border against what they see (rightly or wrongly) as a foreign threat to their identity and way of life.
Regardless of their tactical success, American air strikes, which often cause civilian deaths, inflame Afghan nationalism and anti-American sentiments in the Pashtun region and cement the unholy alliance between the Taliban and foreign extremists. They have the potential to destabilise nuclear-armed Pakistan. Ridding the Pashtun tribal lands of al Qa'eda and other foreign extremists demands a region-wide political settlement, and a negotiated agreement with the Pashtun tribes (which would likely bring the Taliban into the government) would likely result in the expulsion of al Qa'eda and other foreign fighters from the area.
To his credit, Obama has recently offered a more complex strategy for stabilising Afghanistan, which would address governance, political and economic security, education and employment. He has pledged to assist the democratically elected government in Islamabad and "provide concrete solutions to the poverty and lack of education that exists." The risk facing both Kabul and Washington is that the Taliban - emboldened by recent successes - will likely reject a power-sharing arrangement and fight on, drawing a new Obama administration back into the labyrinth of tribal politics in Afghanistan.
This multifaceted approach to Afghanistan should allow Obama to focus attention directly and intelligently on the fight against bin Laden. In contrast to the Bush administration, which relied on force alone - and alienated Muslim opinion around the world - Obama will deploy America's soft power and utilise political means to defeat the terrorist organisation and reach out to Muslims. Obama has said that one of his first initiatives will be to visit a pivotal Muslim country to make the case that the US is not waging a war against Islam. In stark contrast to Bush's Manichean worldview (in which you are "either with us or against us"), Obama's style is to build genuine multilateral coalitions and work closely with Muslims to arrest the proliferation of political violence and terrorism. He will emphasise civilisational dialogue and coexistence, religious tolerance and inclusiveness.
Do not underestimate the symbolic power of Obama's personal appeal to the Muslim world. President Obama - an African American with Muslim ancestry - will shatter widespread stereotypes about America. A visit by Obama to Cairo, Tehran, or Indonesia would send a powerful message that would resonate across the Arab world among those who feel the United States still sees them as the enemy. In this regard Obama is bin Laden's worst nightmare, and his resounding victory hammers a final nail in the strategy of religious and civilisational clash that bin Laden has pursued to sustain his flagging movement.
Obama knows he needs to offer more than lofty and uplifting rhetoric to repair broken bridges of trust with Muslims. Taking a jab at his predecessor, he has pledged to move swiftly after inauguration to broker a peace settlement between Palestinians and Israelis based on two viable states living side-by-side at peace. He made it clear that he will directly get involved and invest presidential political capital in helping to engineer a breakthrough.
Much ink has been spilt on Obama's speech before AIPAC last June in which he sought to show his unwavering commitment to Israel's security: "Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."
There is no denying that Obama accepts the dominant US narrative on Israel as a special ally. He has laboured hard to dispel suspicions and innuendos spread by Zionist hardliners and the religious right that he is sympathetic to the Palestinians and is no friend of Israel. The stance of the Obama presidency on Palestine-Israel will resemble the Clinton administration's. In fact, some of the same players, mainly liberal Zionists like Denis Ross, may be in charge of this sensitive portfolio. That is not necessarily a bad thing - particularly after the last eight years - and one would hope that they have learnt one lesson or two from Clinton's inability to conclude a deal.
At Taba, with the explicit support of Clinton's advisers, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators agreed on the specific contours of a peace settlement. The new Obama administration could launch another serious bid to bring Palestinians and Israelis together. Obama appears willing and committed to advancing the peace process, but the odds are still long. The powerful Likud lobby will keep Obama's feet to the fire, and it is unlikely that he will even attempt a move on the peace process until Israelis and Palestinians resolve their own leadership crises.
There is also real potential for a breakthrough in US-Iranian relations: Obama has not only proposed direct high-level contacts, but also a normalisation of diplomatic relations. The Obama administration has stated a willingness to recognise Iran's rising role as a regional superpower - if the Tehran regime "abandons its nuclear programme and support for terrorism." Those are tempting offers to Tehran after years of fierce struggle with Washington. But the ruling mullahs are masters of bazaar bargaining and negotiation. They are fully aware that the US needs their assistance to exit Iraq without triggering genocide, further turmoil and chaos. As in Afghanistan, a normalisation of relations with Iran will require a region-wide strategy to resolve the multiple conflicts still simmering: it will take time, effort and a prolonged commitment by Obama to shepherd the process to its conclusion.
Will Obama be able to overcome all those foreign policy challenges, while putting America's economic house in order? Will he able to navigate the minefield of institutional pressures, constraints and powerful lobbies he will face after taking the oath of office? There is good reason to believe he may, backed by an American public that delivered a landslide victory for Obama and an overwhelming rebuke to the policies of Bush and McCain, intent on returning their country to the position of global leadership it has methodically surrendered in the last eight years.
Fawaz A Gerges is professor of International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence University. His most recent books are Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy and The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global.
