United States President Obama’s recent speech in Cairo has been hailed as a hand of friendship stretched out to the Muslim world, seeking a “new beginning” based on mutual interests and respect. But, stripping away the words and looking at the policies, it is clear that this is not a new beginning, but in fact a return to the pre-Bush policies of US imperialism. In short, maintaining the status quo of US domination of the region and attempting to co-opt more ‘friendly Arabs’ into the orbit of US influence.

Peppered with flattering references to the Qur’an, to Islam as a religion of peace, to the contributions of American Muslims, and the debt owed by civilisation to Islam, it begins by calling for a rejection of crude stereotypes of Muslims, and with them the “stereotype” of the US as a “self-interested empire”. Obama is positioning the US as a country with high-minded idealism, spreading universal values – before placing the onus on Muslim countries and communities not to tolerate “violent extremists”.

Calling the war in Afghanistan a war of necessity (as opposed to the “war of choice” fought in Iraq), he presents terrorism, 9/11 and the threat posed by al-Qaeda as justifications for that country’s continued occupation – but goes on to claim that Iraqis are better for the overthrow of Saddam, repeating his pledge to withdraw from Iraq, and promising to make more use of diplomacy in future conflicts.

Identifying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a source of tension between the US and Muslims worldwide, he cites the Holocaust and makes it clear that US ties with Israel are “unbreakable”. While his reference to the Palestinians suffering for “sixty years” in pursuit of a homeland (implicitly acknowledging the ethnic cleansing of 1948 as the beginning of the conflict) is new, as is his description of their situation as an “occupation”, it remains to be seen what actions will result from this. Calls for the Palestinians to have a “state of their own” alongside Israel have been part of US diplomacy’s stock-in-trade for at least a decade.

Nor is his apparently “open” attitude towards Hamas a new thing, tied as it is to the old preconditions that Hamas should “abandon violence”, respect previous rotten deals with Israel signed by the Palestinian Authority, and accept Israel’s “right to exist”. Lecturing the Palestinians on non-violence, he claims that violence did not win “full and equal rights” for black people in the US – without mentioning that it took a civil war to abolish slavery and grant them the (formal) right to vote.

More importantly, what does he mean by saying that he does not accept the legitimacy of “continued Israeli settlements”? Will he stop funding them with US taxpayers’ money? Does he want them dismantled, or just see their expansion frozen? Faced with a new Israeli government that has effectively abandoned a negotiated settlement for “two states”, there are two options open to him. Will he threaten to withhold aid and loan guarantees, as Bush Senior did to Yitzhak Shamir’s government in the early 1990s, or will he look the other way, as Clinton did the last time Netanyahu was Israeli prime minister?

It is with regard to Iran that his much-vaunted promise of “change” comes through, calling for talks without preconditions and accepting Iran’s right to a “peaceful” nuclear energy programme. He even acknowledged, for the first time ever, the US’s role in overthrowing the democratically elected Mosaddeq government in the 1950s. But his calls to prevent a “nuclear arms race” in the region ring hollow when he does not even mention Israel’s nuclear weapons, and its defiance of any international inspections.

Obama’s words on democracy, on the other hand, will probably bring a sigh of relief to dictatorial US allies like Egypt’s Mubarak and Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy. Observing that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other”, he says only that governments that protect democratic rights are “ultimately more stable” – and commits himself to governments that “reflect the will of the people” – precisely the claim that every rotten Arab dictatorship makes for itself. More sinister is his statement that “elections alone do not make true democracy”. Intended as a dig at his ally Egypt could this be used to isolate and attack Lebanon if Hezbollah and its allies win this month’s elections, just as the Palestinians were when they elected Hamas?

His statements on promoting religious freedom are really a rebuke of France and other European countries, emphasising his own country’s lack of interest in restricting the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab, while his mention of the Arab world’s Christian minorities (specifically the Lebanese Maronites and the Egyptian Copts) is of a piece with the West’s traditional use of these minorities’ interests as an occasional pretext for intervention. Similarly his talk of promoting women’s education and economic development is really a sign that the US will continue to use NGOs as a means of fostering a friendly local elite.

In summary, then, Obama’s speech does signal change – but only because his predecessor’s style was itself a dramatic break from the past. It marks a return to the methods of Clinton and Bush Senior in enlisting the collaboration of Arab and Muslim regimes – albeit in a changed world where US troops occupy Iraq and will occupy Afghanistan for some time to come. It might give the corrupt regimes some comfort that they will be consulted for their support in future US adventures – but will not put an end to the imperialist domination that keeps provoking resistance. For all his fine words, no-one should be fooled that the US will not continue to support Israel, the Arab dictatorships and the crushing of popular movements.