To varying degrees and with inconsistent results, President Obama’s predecessors have all tried and failed to midwife peace in the Middle East. But if he is serious about investing in a meaningful, invigorated peace process he might also look beyond the lessons of his predecessors. To find an answer that will not only halt the current violence but achieve a sustainable lasting solution, he should learn from the experience of one of the most critical players in Mideast peace throughout the latter half of the 20th century — King Hussein of Jordan.

Although the king died 10 years ago next month, he could still offer critical advice to Obama. His private papers, sealed in the Royal Hashemite Archives until I was granted exclusive access in 2007, reveal a man inspired, frustrated, encouraged, and depressed by the strategies, engagement, and political vicissitudes of the relevant players. Hussein’s private correspondence with every American president since Eisenhower

offers new insight into what worked, what didn’t, and how a revived effort to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians might improve America’s chances of success in the region.

Jimmy Carter, “thrilled” by assurances that tackling Middle East peace topped Obama’s agenda, similarly buoyed Hussein’s hopes that the Carter presidency might hail a new era for the region. Carter’s early pursuit of a multilateral peace followed the approach favoured by the king. But with the dramatic visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem in November 1977, Carter’s multilateral process was effectively derailed. In the end, the 1978 Camp David summit produced a bilateral Egyptian-Israeli peace deal but neglected the fate of the Palestinians. In the king’s view, until their fate was resolved, there could be no peace.

Thirty years on, the Palestinian question remains unsolved. Hussein would probably urge Obama to establish and maintain a dogged focus on a comprehensive, multilateral solution. It was Hussein’s involvement in the US-backed peace process after the Gulf crisis that formed the backdrop for the close relationship he developed with Bill Clinton. In contrast to Reagan, Clinton took time to study the substantial US military and economic aid package the king requested in June 1994 during the peace negotiations with Israel. Clinton and Hussein shared a commitment to negotiating a comprehensive Middle East peace. After Hussein’s death, the president wrote to his son King Abdullah commending Hussein’s “dedication to peace and his commitment to the universal values of tolerance and mutual respect...”

If Obama wants to learn from his predecessors, understanding their relationship with King Hussein — his frustrating history with Carter’s dashed effort, Reagan’s lack of one, disagreements with Bush Sr., and a close but ultimately failed effort by Clinton — could give the new president the best chance at a meaningful, sustainable peace for the region and the world. — The Christian Science Monitor