Obama’s historical visit to the Middle East that he started in Saudi Arabia yesterday is of concern to all extremists, even those who are supposed to be staunch enemies – in theory at least. Israeli Minister of Transportation, Katz, who is close to Netanyahu, hastened to criticize the US endeavor to “win the hearts” of Iran and Al Qaeda and publicly criticize the Israeli settlement policy. Al Qaeda’s number one and number two, Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, attacked “the criminal who came to obtain through deceit what he was unable to obtain on the ground.” Ahmadinejad blamed Washington for the Zahedan blast and promised to continue “resisting international pressures” if reelected president.

Such criticism and hostile stances do not only stem from temporary reservations towards the sudden change in Washington’s approach to the region, but also reflect the confusion of these parties whose policies were built and still revolve around America’s extreme hostility and biased stance. Hence, this US transformation leaves these parties in a state of imbalance, at a loss, concerned about their image and role.

Throughout the years of struggle in the Middle East, especially since the mid-1950s, the Americans have constituted the great target that is easy to attack and accuse of all predicaments. Some of the regional regimes have gotten accustomed to blame Washington for their political failure, military defeats, bloody coups, unjust treatment of citizens, disinterest in development, inability to peacefully deal with their environment, as well as scientific and technological backwardness. Hence, hostility to Americans has turned into a raison d'être for these regimes and their permanent slogans on every occasion. Even their “defiance” slogan was reflective of their rejection of the US policy rather than an expression of suggested alternatives. Moreover, Israel exploited this situation and pursued its settlement policy – taking advantage of the blame thrown on Americans for all its actions.

Today, the White House master is showing that America is changing, and could change more if it found sufficient response; that it is not hostile to Arabs and Muslims or in a blind alliance with Israel; that it seeks a solution that would give Palestinians their independent state because this would preserve its national security, serve its interests, and reduce the threats to American military and civil presence in the Middle East.

There isn’t a clear and easily targetable “enemy” anymore. The open hand policy embarrasses extremism. The elimination of the US “scapegoat” - through withdrawal from Iraq, determined stances against Israeli settlement and the two-state solution - pulls the rug from under those who find in ongoing tensions their raison d'être, as peace and stability in the Middle East does not suit them. Although it is still too early to issue a definitive positive or negative judgment on the performance of the Obama administration, it seems to have encouraging repercussions on the Arab public opinion, as a poll has shown an increase in the popularity of the US President among Arabs. This development is enough to worry “defiants” in the various camps.