Editor in Chief: Moh. Reza Huwaida Monday, September 21st, 2020

Obama’s European Tour

Perhaps, one of the top priorities of current President Obama's European tour is strengthening bilateral relationship with United Kingdom, which, however stable, has moved on rocky way, since Prime Minister David Cameron clearly has been violating his predecessor tradition of blindly following Washington's decisions. Mr. Cameron frequently has tried to break the so-called slavish relation with US, however, maintained strong tie on key global issues.

On Wednesday, President Obama sought to reassure that U.S. and European influence would remain as dominant as ever, in a clear reaction against increasing anxiety that they will be replaced by new asserting powers like India and China. In his statements, he related the dominance and leadership position of US and European to ideas they believe and fight for like indispensable human rights, not to their strong economy or military might and etc.

However, Both Mr. Cameron and Obama looked relieved due to their joint interests in the global spheres, but there are differences too which are critically vital. In the case of Israel-Palestine conflict, seemingly, British is tired of paying more expenses for supporting Tele Aviv, while United States will never lay down her long-lasting strategic regional ally at any cost.

Though President Obama previously determined the pre-1967 borders for resumption of negotiation between two countries, Benjamin Netanyahu clearly rejected the suggestion. No matter what the differences are, ultimately it would be US which will not leave Israel alone. President Obama opposes the unilateral measure of Palestine seeking recognition of statehood in UN. Perhaps, if Palestine does so, many countries will support, including United Kingdom, as it previously did, but US finally would veto it.

Another central issue between US and British is definitely the issue of Afghanistan after assassination of Osama bin Laden. His dead has created a political and military optimism among the countries involved. When the US attacked Afghanistan in 2009, the reason was al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden. If Taliban gave up Osama and his terror network, possibly international community might reassess its military operation.

Presently, there is no Osama, and this issue has sparked a notion among Kabul's foreign allies that they can leave the country even before scheduled time. Such a strategic hasty decision making is absolutely dangerous, the view which President Obama holds too, seemingly. In his talks with David Cameron, he tries to warn him of such hasty decision and its fatal consequences and convince him to be more cautious about Taliban-led militants which of course are not less dangerous than the Al-Qaeda.