Obama’s forthcoming (4 June) speech in Cairo has already raised such hopes that disappointment is inevitable. Based on a close reading of his Turkey speech, an earlier post (Good Islam, Bad Islam) had concluded that beneath the whipped cream of Obama’s oratory, his underlying reading of Islam and Muslims (he didn’t seem to differentiate between the two) was not very different from that of his predecessor.

This reading — that has been in the making since about the Iranian “revolution” (or perhaps, in current terminology, the Iranian “un-countered insurgency”) of 1979 — splits Islam into a personal “faith” (like modern Christianity), and a demonised “ideology” to be exterminated (along with its adherents). With the result that conflict becomes inevitable, and the outlines of a supportive Obama Doctrine of imperial control (in the name of “persistent engagement“), that is militaristic and anti-democratic, are already visible.

Even so, here is a sample of thoughtful views of what should, could, and would be said in Cairo, that represent possibly a triumph of hope over experience:

Robert Dreyfus advises Obama, quite correctly, to renounce the demonisation of Islam (still found in “the neocon-linked thinktanks and in the pages of the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, and the Wall Street Journal editorial pages”), de-bunk the Lewis-Huntington Clash of Civilisations doctrine, and re-iterate the views expressed in a 1992 speech by Edward Djerejian, then the assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs:

“The US government does not view Islam as the new ‘ism’ confronting the West or threatening world peace. … The Cold War is not being replaced with a new competition between Islam and the West. The Crusades have been over for a long time.”

William Pfaff notes that the speech is expected to redefine American policy in the Middle East; he too hopes that Obama will distance himself from Bush and Huntington, but notes the formidable constraints to real progress, ending with the dream that “Obama declares in Cairo that he wishes to withdraw all American forces from Muslim countries” that he well realises can hardly come true.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has written a letter to US President Obama hihglighting persecution, injury, and killing of journalists by US military in the Arab and Muslim world and called upon him to address this issue if he is to make a success of his speech in Cairo.

The Ethics Forum points out that “Respect for Islam, a prescription for Palestinian statehood and assurances of a speedy US pullout from Iraq — that’s what Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia want to hear from President Barack Obama this week.” But while Obama is popular in th Muslim world, many wonder whether he can “walk the talk,” in the words of social activist Marina Mahathir, daughter of Malaysia’s former prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad.

Michael Allen asks whether democracy will figure in Mr. Obama’s speech? He notes that speaking in Egypt “presents Obama with a genuine dilemma” for as noted by “James Traub, author of a recent book on promoting democracy: Mr. Obama has a gift for eluding antinomies: he is “both-and” rather than “either-or.” But consensus-seeking has its limits. You can demonstrate deep respect for both the state and its people in a democracy like the Czech Republic – but not in a place like Egypt, where the people feel crushed by the state. There you must make a choice. And if the state is a valued ally, it will be a very difficult choice.”

Susan Webb notes the high expectations from the Cairo speech, but citing a broad spectrum of opinions she argues that real progress on subtantive issues will have to supplant platitudes. She quotes Columbia University history professor Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian American, who says that “Obama, in his Cairo speech, cannot simply repeat “the well-considered (and generally well received) generalities” of his interview with the major Arab TV station al-Arabiya and his speech in Turkey earlier this year. “These were a good beginning, but what is required now is far more difficult,” Khalidi said in a Harper’s magazine interview.”

The Economist reports on two interviews with Rashid Khalidi and sums up: “one senses that there are great expectations in the Middle East for Mr Obama to directly confront his host and similar regimes in the region. It would be a tricky balancing act: Can he disown any notions of American empire, while also directly inserting himself into the region’s internal politics? Unless he follows up his speech with real changes to American policy, he risks faring no better than his predecessor.”

Finally, The Washington Post reports on a variety of right-of-centre views on what Barack Obama should say on Cairo.

Ali H. Alyami, also in this camp, asks whether Obama’s trip will be “a new dawn, or more of the same?” He believes that “The success of the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt will depend on his understanding [among other things that] anti-American sentiments among many Arabs … is mostly caused by U.S. Administrations’ support for Arab despots, rather than America’s support for Israel as Arab regimes and their controlled media want the world to believe.”

In the topsy turvy world we live in these — or perhaps these, excluding the last two — constitute the sane fringe; in the United States, where Mr. Obama has to fight his next election, the lunatic core, with views far to the right of these, is much more heavily represented.