Two issues will come together for him: (i) the reemergence of "the American Interest" and (ii) reaching out to the Arab/Islamic world.
I have long felt that the driving force (ideal or goal) of the American Interest is 'economic penetration', the expansion of the American industrial complex. The Arab/Islamic world offers a large and generally untapped population. It's untapped for a variety of reasons including: (a) the Arab boycott of companies that trade with Israel as the nationalization of previously prosperous industries (viz the oil/petroleum companies in Arabia), (b) that many American products are either too sophisticated or expensive, and finally (c) the historically close diplomatic, military relationship between Israel and America.
Leading up to the trip, the Obama administration has become openly vocal in its criticism of Israel particularly with regard to its settlement policy. In addition to its call for a two state solution (two states--Palestine and Israel--side by side) it's called for a total freeze including "natural growth" of settlement growth as well as the dismantling of "illegal" settlements. Despite expressions for "secure and recognized borders", the latter has raised rankles within Israeli government and society in general. Many--including me--believe that there's a paradigm shift in American policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East in general. Israel is being offered on the altar for the sake of better relations with the Arab/Islamic world.
I remain skeptical about its prospects for real success.
Howard Feinman writing in Newsweek magazine writes about his trip in general and tomorrow's speech at Cairo University
Now comes the ultimate test of autobiographical speechmaking. Obama this week speaks at Cairo University, in the hub of Muslim-Arab culture. Perhaps the results will be Philly II: a skillful blend of grandeur and grit. On one level, he isn't risking much. After all, George W. Bush set the bar so low. All Obama has to do to be a success is elicit applause—rather than a fusillade of hurled shoes.
But he has privately told friends that his goal is far higher: nothing less than to help "reconcile Islam and modernity." He will pay homage to the Golden Age of that culture—its glorious achievements in mathematics, science, literature and diplomacy—and note that Muslim scholars rescued from oblivion the Greek and Roman (i.e., the "Western") canon. He also will draw on the by-now-familiar story of his own life. A Christian son of an African-Muslim father, he spent years in Muslim-majority Indonesia, attending a public school run by, but not suffused with, the teachings of Islam. All of this, Obama thinks, not only allows him, but obliges him, to play a grand role as bridge builder.
Yet as Fineman points out, Cairo isn't Philadelphia (where he sought to create distance between himself ans his (former) mentor and minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and Egypt isn't America. As he raises expectations and speaks of hope,
A bigger risk is that the incorrigibles in the neighborhood—the true terrorists—will see him as a naif and be emboldened by that thought. But the biggest danger for Obama is that he will become a prisoner of his own words, and the high expectations they create. The human-rights community expects him to reflect its concerns about political repression. Palestinians will want him to address the running sore of Gaza, at least. Announcing student exchanges or new development programs won't be enough. "I'm sure he'll give a fine speech," said John Esposito, an expert on Islam at Georgetown University. "The better it is, the more action people will expect. People are getting very tired of words."
Expectations aside, I'm also not sure that any outsider--someone outside the Arab &/or Islamic world--can (never mind will) bring the Arab world into the modern world. Beyond the anger the Arab/Islamic world has for the modern western world who they continue to believe subjects them to ongoing degeneration--Osama bin-Ladin is merely a recent and populist expression, it also exists among the Arab elites--, I believe that the political reality (read current political leadership) tends towards totalitarian governments--including Obama's Egyptian host Hosni Mubarak.
As Michael Crowley writes in The New Republic "Plank" blog from Cairo, the major concern of the (neutered) Muslim Brotherhood isn't so much Barack Obama as it is internal Egyptian affairs,
Habib [deputy chair of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood] explained his skepticism about Obama's speech here on Thursday. "If there is no radical change in American policies, I don't think it matters what he says," Habib told me through a translator. "I pity Obama because I know he is not on his own. He is surrounded by different forces--business conglomerates and the Zionist lobby." Nor did Habib care much for the prevailing debate in the US about how much emphasis to place on democracy promotion. "Understand that democracy in the Bush administration was not a goal itself but a curtain to hide the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan." When it comes to Egypt's internal affairs, all the Muslim Brothers ask, Habib said, was that the US end its support for Hosni Mubarak's regime. "We don't want anything from the U.S. but to back off from supporting existing dictatorships. That's it," he said.
So, despite all the hoopla surrounding Obama's tour, the only thing I expect to change in the Arab world is to have its anti-Israel feelings validated and Israel's support and security diminished. So instead of a win-win situation, it'll be a losing proposition for all who seek a safer and freer world.
