Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle East Studies at the John Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal in which he argues that Barack Obama’s foreign policy will be more ‘realistic’ than George W. Bush’s was. A new era has arrived, for Ajami not necessarily better, in which the Middle East may very well be left alone, autocratic regimes will be allowed to foster their strength and power, and Muslims – be they radical or moderate – free to teach their faith to others as they see fit.

As Ajami notes, it is slightly amusing to see that today’s liberals seem to have embraced a realist foreign policy agenda, believing that other countries cannot be changed (overnight). The ways of the West are a result of a specific culture, history and people(s). Exporting those ways to other regions with entirely different cultures may often prove disastrous, or so today’s liberals often claim.

That is interesting because it were liberals not conservatives who used to agree with dreams of spreading liberty and democracy abroad. Lest we forget, Bush’s foreign policy views are similar to those of Woodrow Wilson, a true American progressive (or liberal). Both men believed that freedom, liberty and democracy were universal values which would be embraced by all peoples once they encountered them.

History has taught us this to be a utopian dream. Western concepts of liberty, freedom and democracy do not appeal to all peoples everywhere. Of course they may appeal to them to some degree, but most peoples’ view on those concepts differ considerably from ours. Liberty does not mean the same to Westerners as it does to Iraqis, for instance, nor does ’secularism’ appeal to them all.

As such, a realist foreign policy is welcome. However, Obama and his team should not fall in the trap many realists have fallen in before them: working with whomever is in power of a country, no matter how authoritarian the individual or regime is, will not help improve America’s image nor oppress extremism. Rather, one of the main reasons the U.S. is hated throughout the Middle East is that many Arabs feel that the U.S. helped authoritarians like Saddam Hussein to power and, once in power, helped them hang on to it regardless of what these dictators did, and no matter how badly they treated their own people.

George W. Bush’s foreign policy certainly did little to make America more popular in this part of the world. But one should not forget that the U.S. was highly unpopular before Bush took office. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson and all the others who went before them helped destroy America’s image in the Middle East.

The U.S. was not always unpopular in the Arab world, however. Before, during and after World War II many Arabs focused on the U.S. thinking that this Western power would be willing to help them emancipate and improve their lot in life. They did not trust Europeans, especially not the French and British, who had raped them and their lands for decades in an attempt to expand their own empires. The U.S, on the other hand, had little to no history of active involvement in the region, leading many Arab leaders to think that if they were to receive help from anyone it would be from the Americans.

Since then things have changed considerably. Not because the U.S. implemented a too idealistic foreign policy but, rather, because there was no idealism involved; only cold, hard calculations of national interests as realists tend to do.

Obama, his advisers and other foreign policy thinkers would be wise to articulate a brand new foreign policy, which has to borrow a bit from past realists and the utopian ideology of George W. Bush. A middle way has to be found, with room for nuances and local differences. The U.S. should not force its values on anyone, but it should also not be too relativist thereby empowering dictators and authoritarian regimes such as the ones in Cairo, Egypt, or in Damascus, Syria. It should be realized that if change comes to the Middle East it will only do so slowly and based on the traditions, values, cultures and history of the peoples living in that part of the world. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that change will come, even in the most authoritarian countries, for all regimes, including dictatorial ones, will in the end face imminent collapse. Realism and national interests should be the guide, but it should be kept in mind that the true long term interest of the United States is to befriend Arab peoples or, at the very least, not to alienate them, thereby turning them into mortal enemies.

The question is whether team Obama understands the above, or whether they will go back to the ‘realist’ policies pursued by other ‘realist’ presidents who, in the end, caused tremendous damage to America’s image and reputation in the Arab world, thereby making the U.S. the least popular country in the region.