This latest declaration joins Obama's earlier statement that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us".
The new policy is one of outreach to enemies. Among other things, it involves reduced pressure and attempts at dialogue with Iran, as well as what looks like an extended courtship of the Assad regime in Syria.
In words and deeds, the response of these countries to the Obama approach is also becoming apparent.
In February, Iran carried out two high-profile acts indicating that its drive to achieve a nuclear weapons capability has -- so far at least -- failed to be swayed by the new era.
On February 2, Tehran announced that it had successfully launched its first satellite into orbit. The launch was testimony to the advances made by Tehran's long-range ballistic missile program. It was also testimony to the importance the Iranian regime attaches to acts of open defiance and demonstrations of strength.
On February 25, Iran revealed that it is to begin a test run of its Russian-built light water reactor at Bushehr. The plant, which began construction in 1998, is due to begin functioning in the first half of this year. Russia has resisted international calls to suspend involvement. The test run, which coincides with a visit to Tehran of the head of Russia's state atomic energy corporation, represents an additional message from the Iranians regarding their position on the relative importance of extended hands and clenched fists.
Below the radar screen, there is concern at the increasing opacity of the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranians have chosen a unique interpretation of their obligations vis-a-vis the International Atomic Energy Agency and its investigations. More and more, Iran simply declines to provide information. The result is that there are now real fears that a secret uranium enrichment site in addition to the site at Natanz may have been constructed. Regarding the not-yet-operating heavy water plant at Arak, again, Iran is simply refusing to answer questions. The Iranians' impunity derives from a probably correct reading of the present international atmosphere.
The courting of Syria, meanwhile, is showing no signs of being knocked off track by the latest revelations from the IAEA regarding just what it was that the Israeli air force bombed at al-Kibar in September 2007. A recent report from the agency dismissed Syrian attempts to claim that traces of uranium found at the site were residue left by Israeli munitions. Inspectors have complained that Syria is denying access to parts of the site and has failed to provide requested documentation concerning the site's use.
Syrian spokesmen have explained the reluctance to grant access as deriving from fears that Israel may try to use information provided to gain knowledge of Syrian military installations. As if on cue, and in the latest evidence of the Syrian regime's feline sense of humour, a missile facility has now appeared at the site bombed in 2007. The facility, apart from defending Syrian skies from its enemies, will no doubt serve an additional function as a reason why the site cannot be made open to inspectors from the IAEA.
Despite all this, the charm offensive is continuing. In addition to three high-profile congressional delegations to Damascus, a series of quieter gestures are signalling to the Syrians that the sanctions regime put in place by the previous US administration may discreetly be wound down. The US Treasury Department last week permitted $US500,000 ($780,000) to be transferred to a Syrian charity. The Department of Commerce approved the supplying of spare parts to Syria's superannuated Boeing 747 aircraft, and so on.
Thus far deeds. In terms of words, the picture does not differ greatly. The Syrians were reputedly angered by a suggestion from congressman Benjamin Cardin during the visit of the first congressional delegation that Damascus might share some responsibility for its international isolation because of its "partnership of terrorism". An editorial in the al-Watan newspaper described such remarks as "far from the Arab, international and American reality".
The newspaper succinctly summarised Syria's position as follows: "The Syrians are looking forward to a change in American policy, not to a change in Syrian policy."
Iranian spokesmen have struck a similar tone. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi responded to Obama's earlier declaration by contending that Iran had "never clenched its fists". Rather, it was the Bush administration that had shown its "clenched fist to Mid-East nations".
The new era of engagement thus appears so far to be providing the Iranians with valuable leeway for the pursuit of their nuclear ambitions, and the Syrians with similar space to avoid being brought to account for their own, apparently now discontinued program. In addition, the new era is giving the spokesmen of both dictatorships plenty of opportunity for engaging in the scolding and proclamations of moral superiority of which they are fond. It is unlikely that this is what the new US President had in mind. It is therefore probable that the new era will be an unusually short one.
Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre.
