Email |  Print | RSS | Comment |  

 Email |  Print

Sun, May 29, 2011 | The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili says President Obama’s support for Israel shows the “racist nature of US policy.” (Al-Arabiya; File photo)

Iran: Reactions to President Obama’s Speech – “It’s all Words”

President Obama’s Middle East and North Africa speech was met with skepticism in Iran, and said to be an expression of America’s desperation and helplessness resulting from the defeat it suffered in the wake of the recent developments in the Arab world.

Sa’id Jalili, chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, claimed that the speech exhibited signs of desperation, contradiction, and deception on the part of the U.S. The Islamic awakening in the region, Jalili said, has brought the U.S. to a dead end. Being the major loser of the regional developments, the U.S. is in trouble after years of supporting Israel and the totalitarian regimes of the Arab world. Washington is now trying to deal with the real demands of the region’s nations through deception, as it has now become clear that the American strategy in the region for the past seventy years completely contradicted the interests and aspirations of these nations.

Jalili said that Obama’s support for the Jewish government was evidence of the racist nature of American policy. He further stated that the U.S. should know that the entire territory of Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people, and that this is what all the region’s nations demand (various news agencies, May 20).

The Iranian press also took a dismissive approach to the president’s speech. The daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami said that Obama’s proposals are an attempt to make up for the defeats suffered by the American foreign policy in recent months in the wake of the regional developments, and preserve the security of the “Zionist regime” and America’s other allies.

The daily categorically ruled out Obama’s proposals for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, claiming that while the president of the U.S. discusses a political settlement based on the 1967 borders, he completely ignores the six million Palestinian refugees and the issue of Arab Jerusalem. The American proposal is designed to maintain the current situation in Palestine while attempting to put an end to the security threats facing Israel. The only way to deal with the Israeli aggression, Jomhuri-ye Eslami said, is the way of resistance, and the Palestinian people know that it is through resistance, rather than negotiations and concessions, that they must restore their rights (Jomhuri-ye Eslami, May 21).

The daily Keyhan argued that Obama’s speech reflected no change in the American policy despite the important developments of the last several months. Based on Obama’s remark that the interests and values of the U.S. do not conflict with those of the region’s nations, it is clear that the U.S. administration has yet to realize the significance of the changes the region has undergone in recent months. Obama offered no support for the revolutions in the region; did not mention Islam — the most significant factor in regional developments — except when discussing Bin Laden’s killing; and instead of expressing support for the popular revolutions, he reiterated his support for the totalitarian regimes of the Arab world while making a meaningless reference to the reforms they need to launch. Obama would have done better to substitute his entire speech with just one phrase: “I apologize”, Keyhan concluded (Keyhan, May 21).

The daily Iran also claimed that there was nothing new in President Obama’s speech. The president’s remarks on the Palestinian issue, as well as other parts of his speech, reflected helplessness and lack of resolve on the part of the U.S.

By promising to help the nations of the Middle East, Obama attempted to make them forget how the U.S. had collaborated with the region’s totalitarian regimes. He discussed the important developments in the Arab world, but did not say a word about Saudi Arabia, which plays a major part in the suppression of the region’s freedom movements. He attacked Iran, Syria, and the resistance camp, while expressing support for the rulers of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan, which suppress their peoples. Thus, Obama once again showed the double standards upon which the American foreign policy is based. In addition, he did not provide an explanation why the military attack on Libya weakened the revolutionists instead of weakening the tyrant Gaddafi.

Obama also did not present any new plan with regard to the Palestinian issue, instead reiterating the commitment of the U.S. to maintaining the security of Israel. Given how weak Obama is compared to the Congress and the “Zionist lobby”, Israel can count on its ability to enforce its views on the White House. Obama’s speech is meaningless, the daily claimed, its only aim being to help the president in his presidential campaign (Iran, May 21).

The conservative daily Siyasat-e Rouz said that the U.S. had always tried to take advantage of the Palestinian issue to promote its regional and global objectives. It manipulated regional moves in such a way that Arab countries, which took part in the peace process, become the ones that actually implemented the American plans, and thus the interests of the U.S. were preserved. The trend has now changed, and after toppling their governments, the region’s nations have set their sights on fighting the Zionist occupation and strengthening the resistance camp. Support for the Palestinians has also grown stronger on the international scene, and hundreds of countries and organizations have announced their intention to recognize Palestine’s independence this coming September. Faced with these processes, the Americans now seek to regain control of the Palestinian issue to continue exploiting it for their own interests and those of Israel (Siyasat-e Rouz, May 22).

A different and unusual view of Obama’s speech could be seen in an editorial published in the reformist daily Sharq. The newspaper argued that the president’s speech was a turning point in the political and security activity of the U.S. in the Middle East, and that President Obama’s new policy could have both positive and negative repercussions.

The daily commended the president’s mention of freedom and democracy as the basis for the regional policy of the U.S., also noting, however, that the U.S. was the major supporter of the region’s totalitarian regimes. Furthermore, as long as the U.S. supports Israel, there can be no independent Palestinian state due to Israel’s uncompromising positions. According to Sharq, the U.S. can develop trust in its Middle Eastern policy only by making a massive change in it, and by using its power to put pressure on Israel and to act in the best interests of Middle Eastern countries (Sharq, May 22).

Meanwhile, the Tabnak website reported this week that following President Obama’s speech, Expediency Discernment Council chairman Mohsen Reza’i sent President Ahmadinejad a letter in which he suggested increasing Iran’s support for the popular uprisings in the region.

In the letter, Reza’i argued that President Obama’s speech, which included recognition of the 1967 borders and a demand to release the political prisoners in Bahrain and Yemen, reflected America’s acknowledgement of the new reality formed in the wake of the “Islamic awakening” in the region. However, the speech provides no solution to the demands of the region’s nations. Obama did not call on the heads of state of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia, to comply with their peoples’ demands for freedom and democracy; he did not apologize for the long-standing support provided by the U.S. to the Egyptian regime and other totalitarian regimes in the region; and did not condemn Saudi Arabia’s military aggression against Bahrain. The nations of the region, therefore, will not be convinced by President Obama’s speech, and will likely continue their fight. Given this situation, Iran has to continue helping the nations without fear of being accused of meddling in the internal affairs of Arab countries. It was Reza’i’s suggestion that, together with Iraq and Turkey, Iran establish a “front for defending the region’s nations” to help further the demands of the nations (Tabnak, May 22).