By Sobhi Ghandour
With every new US administration, Americans are used to pausing at the president's first 100 days in office to evaluate the administration's work and the new president's commitment to the promises he made during the election campaigns.
Opinion polls in the past few days revealed that about two-thirds of Americans trust President Barack Obama's leadership and support his plans and programmes. Of course, the most important issue for the American people now is the deteriorating economy and its negative impact on tens of millions of Americans, although that does not undermine the importance of other domestic and foreign issues.
Americans now fear the collapse of situations in countries where the US is militarily involved, especially with the current developments in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps the heavy legacy of crises from the former administration makes it difficult to pick one issue as a criterion to judge Obama's administration after 100 days of taking office.
Furthermore, The Americans have different standards from people of other countries, where foreign policy is the most important criterion when it comes to assessment and accountability.
In general, the Obama administration showed some adjustment in the US position and the way the country deals with current international crises and with other governments around the world.
Yet, this change is still limited to the form, rather than the core of the international issues that concern the US. This is not strange, especially that the administration is still in its first few months. More importantly, no major shift in stances and policies should be expected from the US under Obama's presidency.
Obama's victory in the presidential elections was a reflection of Americans' wish to get rid of the former administration's approach, rather than their support for a radical change in the US society or the foreign policy.
As president, Obama's political movement is confined to three zones, the first of which is the green zone, which covers the constitutional jurisdictions of the president.
These include issuing executive decrees, and other sides that do not affect the US public interests agreed upon by both the Republicans and Democrats and the major US establishments that support them.
The second is the yellow zone, which involves the issues that the president must reconsider carefully before issuing final decisions.
The red zone is where Obama must make a full stop before making any amendments or changes. In red zone issues, it is a must for the president to consult with US state establishments and Congress, before making any decisions.
Obama's decision to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison was an example of his freedom to deal with issues in the green zone. Other examples include his selection of his team and his decision on torture cases by US intelligence, as well as stopping the use of the expression ?war against terror'.
Within the yellow zone comes Obama's withdrawal of his nomination for Charles Freeman for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council after a campaign by the Israeli lobby against the move. Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq may also be considered in the yellow zone, since he had to amend the withdrawal timetable while always stressing his support for the withdrawal decision in principle.
More issues in the yellow zone include Obama's approach to dealing with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as the relation with Cuba, because Obama's new directions with South America are governed by rules that he cannot overlooked.
As for the red zone, the best example would be Washington's boycott of the anti-racism Durban Review Conference in Geneva last month.
The move reflected the strong Israeli influence in US decisions. Obama is extremely cautious when it comes to the Palestinian dossier, despite his successful selection of his envoy for the Middle East, George Mitchell.
The US administration adopted the same conditions imposed on Hamas by the administration of former US president George W. Bush, as a prerequisite for dialogue with Hamas or for its representation in the upcoming Palestinian government.
There is no doubt that Obama's administration is different from that of Bush. It can be described as a car moving in the right direction, but on a bumpy road. It is also governed by American traffic laws and must respect the traffic signals on the road.
Obama's administration is trying to put American policies back on track, because wandering off in the past eight years harmed US interests. The US track was further dominated by ideology in a society that does not like ideologist governments.
Thus, Obama's win was a victory for moderation after years of extremism. Realizing the importance of this reform did not stem from Obama's personal vision and electoral programme, but it was clear in the Baker/Hamilton report issued in 2006 by important US experts and politicians from the Republican and Democratic parties.
Those veteran experts and politicians, and the whole network of US interests and establishments behind them, found in Obama's person and stances the factors that can make him the hero who can put the report's recommendations in place. In fact, Obama is implementing these recommendations now at the various aspects of American politics.
The Obama administration must be evaluated on a case to case basis, and not as a whole. The criteria of evaluation should also include various issues and not focus on one issue, no matter how important.
The last US presidential elections aborted the approach of extremism, which requires abandoning extremism in the way Obama is viewed
While it is incorrect to say that all US administrations are the same, it is also a mistake to have the delusion that Obama's administration will radically change American policies.
Submit your article, poem or story for publication.
