By Christina Sun

Obama’s policy in the Middle East has been based more heavily upon the perseverance of his political image than on pragmatism.

On Aug. 2, 2010, Obama said that he is on the way to fulfilling his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq. Under his plan, the United States will have removed all combat troops by Aug. 31, 2010 and 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts. Obama, however, seems more intent on being precisely on schedule to withdraw than to actually assess the situation and to make decisions based on that assessment. According to Obama’s website, “the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order….” However, on August 1, 2010, the Washington Post reported that “nearly five months after disputed parliamentary elections, leading Iraqi politicians say they have all but abandoned hope of resolving an impasse over forming a new government before fall.”

The latest government figures show that July has been the most violent month for Iraq in more than two years. These figures cause critics of the withdrawal to question the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over.

Although Obama is adhering to his withdrawal timetable, he is doing so at the expense of stability in Iraq and the welfare of Iraqi civilians.

As Obama draws down forces in Iraq, he has also ordered a surge of 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. He has emphasized that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that the goal of the war in Afghanistan is to ultimately defeat al-Qaeda. However, the goals of the withdrawal in Iraq and the defeat of al-Qaeda are at odds with each other. General Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, says that a quick U.S. withdrawal would result in a political vacuum that the al-Qaeda network could quickly fill, thus establishing a major safe haven from which to expand its jihad in the region and plan attacks against the West. A National Intelligence Estimate released on July 17, 2007 states that “al-Qaeda will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland… and will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate.”

The continuing violence in Iraq and the Iraqis’ inability to form a new government reveals the region’s instability. The political vacuum created by US withdrawal would open the floodgates for sectarian and terrorist violence, and the inevitable spillover effects could destabilize the entire Middle East, including tipping the balance of power in favor of Iran. A State Department-issued report on global terrorism declared that Iran “remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism” in the world in 2009. On August 3, 2010, John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said that “this is exactly the wrong moment to complete the withdrawal of combat forces, given the uncertainty in Iraq and Iran’s increased involvement in trying to cause trouble in Iraq.” And yet, Obama not only ignores the threat of Iran, he wants to open up the possibility for talks in Afghanistan. According to an article in the Washington Post on August 5, 2010, Obama said he favored a “separate track” for discussion of the issue, in which the two countries have a “mutual interest” in fighting the Taliban. However, a February 7, 2005 threat report, which was released as part of the Wikileaks Papers, showed that U.S. commanders received regular reports of collusion between the Iranians, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremists groups. The report states that Iranians arm, train, shelter, and fund the jihadists.

The president told reporters that Iran “could be a constructive partner” with the U.S. in fighting the Taliban and stabilizing Afghanistan.

Obama was criticized in the 2008 presidential campaign for having an appeasement policy toward Iran. He has since made concerted efforts to assert his “hard-line” stance on Iran. On June 9, 2010, the U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s military establishment to pressure Iran to negotiate with the U.S. and its allies. However, the legitimacy of his stance on Iran begins to fall apart when he states that he wants to partner with a country who is at war with us. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said in 2008 that “it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans….”

If there was any confusion on Iran’s sentiments and the likelihood that it would partner with us in Afghanistan, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the situation quite clear on the day after Obama’s new peace offering. According to the Weekly Standard, Ahmadinejad hosted Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and declared that their two nations, together with Tajikistan, could form an alliance that would serve as a bulwark against Western influence in the region.

Obama cannot continue to ignore the threat that Iran poses to both U.S. domestic security and to regional security in the Middle East.

The popular rhetoric of campaign speeches is a poor substitute for informed foreign policy decisions. Obama needs to adapt to changing situations in the Middle East, and make decisions that will protect the American people.