Obama ha già scelto il suo capo di gabinetto, Rahm Emanuel, e su di lui gli analisti già cominciano a riflettere. Steve Clemons, nella sua Washington Note, esprime la prima perplessità: che il Medio Oriente abbia una sorta di priorità nella Casa Bianca, ma che sia allo stesso tempo la posizione americana rimanga troppo schiacciata su Israele:
“My greatest fear about Emanuel is that he might perpetuate a “false choice” orientation towards Israel in Middle East affairs that he’s going to have to compensate for and get under control. There are no rational alternatives in the Middle East than actually delivering on a Palestinian state and finally putting the Middle East peace business out of business.
Emanuel needs to prove his judiciousness by not preempting serious progress in Israel/Palestine affairs and not encouraging Barack Obama to make the mistake of trying to define his presidency by exploiting some national security conflict. There are downsides to the JFK comparison”.
Amr Hamzawy, uno degli analisti più interessanti, sottolinea quello che su questo blog avevo appuntato più volte: la presenza sempre più evidente di attori regionali che provano a superare una situazione sostanzialmente bloccata.
“in spite of the unprecedented magnitude of the US military presence in the region, America’s manoeuvrability and available pressure tools have declined. Of course, Washington remains a leading player in Iraq, the Gulf, Palestine and Lebanon, but it can no longer move independently. It would be wrong to think that only Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah are acting outside of the framework of US policies. Long-term allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are exploring courses of their own in order to buffer themselves against the negative repercussions of US policies. The upshot is greater relative autonomy for regional parties, whether for or against the US, growing lines of confrontation, and an increasingly complex map of political interplay and interwoven interests”.