A question mark hovers over Washington

It is beginning to dawn on some people that Barack Obama’s recent victory in passing his groundbreaking health-care bill has done more harm than good to the president’s ambitions in the Middle East, particularly on the Palestinian-Israeli front. Not surprisingly, American priorities in the region are moving elsewhere.

Obama’s health package was a heavy meal for the United States to digest, regardless of its merits or demerits. The legislation polarized attitudes in the country, at a time when Americans fear a heavier future tax burden because of the health bill, but also because of the massive rescue plan following the financial meltdown of 2008.

More generally, Americans are increasingly mistrustful of big government, a point made by Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece in which he described the results of a series of surveys carried out by his institution. “By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of their government these days,” Kohut wrote. “There is a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government – a dismal economy, an unhappy public, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.”

This does not bode well for Obama in November’s congressional and gubernatorial elections. In such a political context, the president is highly unlikely to pick a fight with Israel and in that way alienate pro-Israel voters, who form a core Democratic constituency. But that’s not all. Confronting Israel may also mobilize key Republican groups against the White House, and a great deal in the election will hinge on which party gets its constituencies out to vote. For now, the advantage seems to be leaning distinctly the Republicans’ way.

After the initial disagreement with Israel over settlement-building in East Jerusalem, the Obama administration, rather discernibly, stepped back from a full-fledged brawl. There were leaks that Washington might propose the outlines of a final peace plan, in effect cornering the Israelis, but that scheme didn’t go anywhere. Palestine seems to have steadily drifted down the administration’s importance list. Instead, US officials have become much more publicly concerned with tightening the screws on Iran’s nuclear program, and with showing they will not tolerate Syrian arms transfers to Hizbullah.

This shift represents the surest confirmation yet that Obama’s campaign promise of “engaging” Tehran and Damascus has failed. The president’s apprenticeship in the tortured ways of the Middle East may soon end, to be replaced with a more cohesive regional strategy. Or it may not end, amid signs of deep discord in Washington, particularly over Israel and Syria. If Obama is to assert his leadership on these issues, he will have to iron out the differences.

Take the recent reports that Syria has armed Hizbullah with Scud missiles. Those opposed to US engagement of Syria and those supporting it have been furiously shaping the story in a way that might advance their agenda. On Monday, Syria’s deputy chief of mission was summoned to Foggy Bottom, as the State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid put it, “to review Syria’s provocative behavior concerning the potential transfer of arms to Hizbullah.” Duguid indicated that this was the fourth time the US had expressed concerns, and added, “[o]ur dialogue with Syria on this issue has been frank and sustained. We expect the same in return.”

Not only did Duguid’s admission point to the fact that Damascus apparently sees no risks in being hard of hearing, US officials had earlier qualified his warning by saying they could not confirm the Scuds had been transferred. American displeasure was little apparent when Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed the appointment of the new US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, through his committee, to be voted on by the full Senate. Plainly, Washington is speaking in several tongues on Syria, even as little is being said about another possible “game changer” in a war with Israel, namely advanced anti-aircraft systems that might affect Israeli air superiority over Lebanon.

Confusion was no less present after reports this past weekend that the US defense secretary, Robert Gates, had sent a secret memo to the White House suggesting the administration needed a backup plan if sanctions and negotiations failed to interrupt Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the debate that followed focused on whether Gates had issued a “wake up” call or not. But that was secondary; the secretary only hinted at what everyone else has been saying for over a year: Obama’s Middle East strategy is ambiguous, even incomplete.

Both Syria and Iran will continue to happily maneuver in the spaces opened up by policy disagreements inside Washington. Palestinian-Israeli negotiations have been brought to a halt as the administration is split over what to do next with Israel; Syria is enjoying watching the wrangling between those for and against engagement, and sees no reason to alter its behavior toward Hizbullah; and Tehran can delight in the fact that even a senior official like Gates has quite forcefully requested clearer guidelines on Iran from his boss.

Obama is finding that US behavior in the Middle East was not just about George W. Bush. However, by the time he makes good on that realization, the president’s ability to control policy may have greatly diminished. All politics are local, and foreign policy often succumbs to domestic dynamics. November may be the cruelest month for Obama, if he loses his majority. The states of the region are waiting. All they see in Washington is a big question mark.