Waiting for a huge change is simplistic
An interview with Naser Hadian, a university lecturer and expert on US issues
Some people believe that Barack Obama’s cabinet would be a follow up to the cabinet of Bill Clinton, the last democrat president of the US. According to this view, members of this cabinet would be the most conservative democrats. Here is Iranian Diplomacy’s interview with Dr. Naser Hadian, on the issue.
There were assumptions on the probable ministers of Obama’s cabinet. Are radical democrats going to be seen in this cabinet?
Obama’s cabinet members can not be called radical democrats. They are political centrists. During his presidency, Bill Clinton had led the US politics to the center; and now many of his cabinet members are going to appear in Obama’s. Many people have criticized this trend but I think it is not that much unusual.
In the US system, policies emanate from the party. So electing the ministers from those previously present in the democrats’ circle is a very normal decision. Obama has elected experienced democrats who had previously worked for democrat administrations.
Obama’s slogan during his presidential campaign was "Change". The American youths may anticipate new figures on his cabinet, but the truth is that electing experienced people for Obama’s cabinet seems logical. Anyhow, he must pay attention to the youth’s expectations and wills as well.
The other point about Obama’s cabinet is that he aims at changing policies, not changing persons. So he may choose previously known figures but ask them to mange new policies for the US.
Will the goal of "changing US image" around the world be accomplished in such a cabinet?
The policies are hard to change. The US president does not have the power to change everything. There are limitations on his policies inside and outside the country. For example, his domestic decisions may be limited due to economic and financial structures, civil society limitations, federal system, the congress, the senate, the judiciary and the bureaucratic system of each and every ministry.
At the time being, the most important challenge facing the US president is US financial crisis. Even if the president decided to put foreign policy as his first priority, he could not do that; because the financial crisis is influencing everything and should be given first priority.
Take the bureaucratic structure of any ministry. New ministers can not totally change the system. The system has always been there. But if the minister was willing to use the expertise and experience of his personnel in the ministry, he would have a thorough knowledge of the challenges facing his ministry and he would have the power to modify his policies. The modifications would then be presented to the White House and there would be some changes on overall policies of the state.
On foreign policy, this is the same story. As a global superpower, the US is influenced by limitations and requirements of coalitions, international institutions, and economic and political structures of different countries. So, one should not expect huge changes in policies of the new US administration. This is a simplistic view.
In such a system, what would be Obama’s approach to the Middle East?
The concentration of this government would anyhow be on Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has promised to tackle the Middle East challenges. So he would start with the peace process of Palestine and Israel; and he would probably put pressure on Syria and Israel. If these two agreed to live in peace, the influence of the groups in Lebanon and Palestine would decrease.
Do you think Hillary Clinton’s view to Middle East is just the same as Obama’s?
There is not a difference in their viewpoint. They have similar opinions on Arabs and Israel conflict. Their outlook for Iraq is also the same: They both would advocate the US military commanders’ decisions. On the security deal, Barack Obama wants to see it signed; so that he would be able to bring his troops home or head them towards Afghanistan. He would probably concentrate on Afghanistan.