Obama's regional doctrine left lasting scars

Skewed outlook

These interviews shed light on Obama's true stance on various global and Middle Eastern issues before the end of his presidential term and departure from the White House.

One significant point raised by Obama was his call for Saudi Arabia to "share" the Middle East with its adversary, Iran.

"The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians, which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen, requires us to say to our friends, as well as to the Iranians, that they need to find an effective way to share the neighbourhood and institute some sort of cold peace," Obama told The Atlantic.

However, Obama overlooked Saudi Arabia's scarce involvement in supporting militias and engaging in wars in the mentioned countries, while Iran had been widely known to be playing a destabilising role in the region, spreading chaos and supporting terrorist militias.

In a March 2014 interview, American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg asked Obama to choose which he deemed more dangerous: Sunni extremism or Shiite extremism.

Obama responded by stating that he did not have to make a choice between the two, but he emphasised the strategic nature of the Iranians. He claimed that they were not reckless, possess a distinct worldview, act based on their interests, and weigh costs against benefits.

Regional missteps

Looking back at the events in the region, it is worth recalling the protests that emerged in Iran, known as the Green Movement.

Following the announcement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory over Mir Hossein Mousavi in the presidential elections in June 2009, protests erupted and were met with harsh repression by security forces, resulting in numerous casualties, hundreds of arrests, and the imposition of restrictions on key opposition leaders.

Nearly 13 years later, Obama admitted that not supporting the Green Movement protests in 2009 was a mistake — particularly in light of the recent protests that erupted in Iran after the killing of Mahsa Amini.  

Read more: Mahsa Amini: The girl who was born twice

Iraq also experienced the consequences of Obama's regional approach. In the 2010 Iraqi elections, the Iraqi List led by Ayad Allawi, a liberal politician, won the most votes. However, Iran and its proxies refused to accept defeat.

After weeks of deadlock, the Obama administration proposed a power-sharing agreement that allowed al-Maliki to remain prime minister for a four-year term. This ultimately resulted in al-Maliki staying in power, further strengthening Iran's influence in Iraq.

Lebanon was indeed affected by the consequences of Obama's approach. When Hezbollah employed its weapons within Lebanon and exerted its influence over the elected government, intimidating both the Lebanese people and opposing political forces, the Doha agreement was reached as a solution.

This agreement granted Hezbollah — with support from Iran — the right to veto decisions made by the Lebanese government. It is important to note that the approval and support of the United States and the administration retracting its commitments towards Lebanon and its sovereignty played a role in making this agreement possible.

The current state of the region can be attributed to the "Obama doctrine" and what happened in Syria is only part of his overall strategy in the region.

While it is fair to acknowledge that there were other contributing factors that influenced Obama to backtrack on his red line in Syria, leaving out Obama's regional doctrine and his ambition to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, paints an incomplete picture.