US foreign policy after the former Bush administration's blunder looks like increasingly tough for anybody to have a say in a critical moment like the current turmoil in the Middle East. Having said that, though, it shouldn't be an excuse to stumble upon one of the most significant public uprisings in the recent history now unfolding in the nations once thought to be under ever unchanging autocratic regimes.

If the Obama administration fails now, it would miss the vital opportunity to regain US's lost image and influence over the region in the past several years, and the later generations of the US as well as the entire globe would have to pay a huge penalty in terms of both political and economic stability in the oil rich region.

Nevertheless, incoherence and uneasiness have been felt among the current team on the Middle East, which isn't a welcome sign to signal that the US has thoroughly changed tack and is now wholly on the side of people, not a corrupt, despotic regime, for mutual benefits defined not by bold national interests but by principle.

The reason is that there is no consensus among policymakers on how to tackle the events. So, everybody talks on what he wants, no matter how different from the chief. State Secretary Clinton especially like to dissent from Obama. It could compromise any efforts to send a clear and coherent message to the region. In the case of Egypt:

Contradictory Language

From his first public remarks Jan. 28, the president sided with calls for change. Speaking after Mubarak's resignation Feb. 11, Obama praised the "moral force" of peaceful protests "that bent the arc of history."

"There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place," Obama said. "The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same."

While Obama's words have been clear and consistent, the message was muddied by multiple U.S. officials who reacted to confusing events in sometimes contradictory language.

On Jan. 25, Clinton said the Egyptian government was "stable." Two days later, Biden declared Mubarak was not a dictator and needn't resign.

The following night in a hastily arranged address, Obama said he told Mubarak to "take concrete steps and actions" toward democracy. Clinton appeared on that Sunday's news shows insisting on an "orderly transition." On Feb. 1, Obama said he told Mubarak that a transition "must begin now."

Stable Transition

The message was repeated for a week before Wisner, whom the administration sent to Cairo to urge Mubarak to step down, told a security conference in Munich that a stable transition might benefit from Mubarak staying in office while elections were planned.

The president was angered by Wisner's message, according to an administration official who requested anonymity to discuss the president's private reaction. It marked a low point in the administration's response, said another official, who also requested anonymity.

Though the administration disavowed Wisner's remarks, Clinton suggested Feb. 6 that an orderly transition would be harder if Mubarak were to resign, acknowledging she had been unaware that his departure might trigger elections in 60 days.

At first, it looked like that Obama has no clue on how to address the sudden uprisings in Egypt, but finally crystallized a position to favor a prompt transition from Mubarak in support of Egyptian's protests. However, his aids including Clinton seemed like to back away from recognizing the fall of a long-time US ally in the region, as much as saying Egypt is "stable". The contradiction of words among the administration can also be seen in Iran's case.

President Obama addressed the Iranian demonstrations Tuesday with a large measure of caution, calling on Iran's leaders to allow protesters to express their grievances but stopping short of calling for a change in government.

…

"We were clear then and we are clear now that what has been true in Egypt should be true in Iran - that people should be allowed to voice their opinions and their grievances and seek a more responsive government," Obama said. "What's been different is the Iranian government's response, which is to shoot people and beat people and arrest people."

…

"Each country is different, each country has its own traditions, and America can't dictate what happens in these societies," Obama said, adding that his administration would lend "moral support to those seeking better lives."

This time, while Obama was reluctant to navigate the change in government for Iran, hence showing tepid support for protesters, Clinton quickly expressed her views strongly in favor of demonstrators. Their reaction is opposite to Egypt's case.

Mrs Clinton said they deserved to have "the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt" and that Iran had to "open up" its political system.

…

Later in Washington, Mrs Clinton told reporters that the US administration "very clearly and directly" supports the protesters.

"What we see happening in Iran today is a testament to the courage of the Iranian people, and an indictment of the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime - a regime which over the last three weeks has constantly hailed what went on in Egypt," she said.

Mrs Clinton said the US had the same message for the Iranian authorities as it did for those in Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down after 29 years in power by nationwide mass protests.

"We are against violence and we would call to account the Iranian government that is once again using its security forces and resorting to violence to prevent the free expression of ideas from their own people," she said.

"We think that there needs to be a commitment to open up the political system in Iran, to hear the voices of the opposition and civil society," she added.

Obama has a reason why he is careful not to provoke Iranian government.

Obama's caution stems from the same fear that appeared to guide his response in June 2009: that a clear U.S. call for regime change in Iran would allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cast the protest movement as a creation of Western governments and Israel.

NYT claims that the administration's handling of Iran is at least better than Bahrain, another important US ally across the Persian Gulf, where tens of thousands of people, mainly the Shi'ite, took to the streets, demanding more say in politics in a country dominated by the minority Sunni.

President Obama accused Iran's leaders of hypocrisy for first encouraging the protests in Egypt, which they described as a continuation of Iran's own revolution, and then cracking down on Iranians who used the pretext to come out on the streets. He then urged protesters to muster "the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government."

But speaking to other restive countries, including Bahrain, Mr. Obama directed his advice to governments, not protesters, illustrating just how tricky diplomacy in the region has become. He said his administration, in talking to Arab allies, was sending the message that "you have a young, vibrant generation within the Middle East that is looking for greater opportunity; and that if you are governing these countries, you've got to get out ahead of change. You can't be behind the curve."

This ambivalence through inconsistent messages threatens to undermine the credibleness of the US government, which is required at the very moment. People might see that attitude as an unshakable evidence that they have still been maneuvered by the US (and Israel, if necessary). It looks like that they have made a firm decision not to be, or to be regarded as, a puppet of the US and Israel. Now it's time for the US administration to show a clear stance that the US is firmly on the side of local people, not a dictator. Clinging to narrow interests would undermine the whole interests. Think broad.