President Obama’s exclusive interview on the Arab television network al-Arabiya has been promoted as another indication of the new course in American diplomacy–of a radical break with the policies of the Bush administration. But how much of the substance of his message was really new? Certainly the format was old hat; President Bush appeared on al-Arabiya many times, as long ago as 2004. Even Laura Bush appeared on the network to discuss women’s issues.

A close examination of the al-Arabiya appearances of the two presidents shows more commonality than variance. For example, on the Palestinian issue, President Obama told the Arab world that there is the promise for progress but hard work will be required:

I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people, and that instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table. And it’s going to be difficult, it’s going to take time. . . . But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I’m absolutely confident that the United States–working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region–I’m absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

President Bush speaking in January 2005 gave a similar, even more upbeat assessment:

I’m very optimistic because I believe that most Israelis do understand that in the long term their survival depends upon a democratic state coexisting peacefully with Israel. And I’m very optimistic because I believe the world now sees an opportunity to come together to help the process forward.

Obama is optimistic about the possibility for a two-state solution:

I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side. And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

As was President Bush on al-Arabiya in May 2004:

I stood up in front of the world and said that the Palestinian people ought to have their own state. I’m the first President to have ever said that. And my assurance is, is that I have not changed my vision of two states living side-by-side in peace. . . . [M]y commitment to the Palestinian people is, when peaceful leaders emerge, when people are willing to fight off terror, they will have a great opportunity to see this state emerge. And America will help.

In President Obama’s vision of the future Palestinian state, economic development will play a major role:

I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state–I’m not going to put a time frame on it–that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life. . . . And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

So too in the Bush vision:

In order for the Palestinian economy to grow, there needs to be–there needs to be crossings in–yes, in northern Gaza, in Israel, so people can go and work and come back and bring enterprise. Israeli capital needs to take a look at enterprise zones within the Gaza so that there’s a chance for people to find work. Foreign capital needs to be encouraged to go into Gaza so that the–so that good Palestinians can work. . . . The Palestinians are good businesspeople. And they want to be free. And they’re peaceful, they really are peaceful.

On U.S. relations with the broader Islamic world, Obama drew clear lines between the radicals and the general Muslim community, and stated, regarding the terrorists: “Their ideas are bankrupt. There’s no actions that they’ve taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them. . . . And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.”

This of course is no different from the line that George Bush used throughout his presidency. He told al-Arabiya in October 2005 that the terrorists “have hijacked a great religion. Islam is peace–it’s not war, it’s not killing innocent children and innocent women. . . . They don’t have a philosophy. People don’t say, gosh, I want to follow them because there’s such a better tomorrow. And the only weapon they’ve got is to kill innocent people.”

Obama noted that “there are extremist organizations–whether Muslim or any other faith in the past–that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.” Likewise Bush said to al-Arabiya in October 2007 that “those who came to kill Americans were young terrorists, and they do not reflect the views of the vast majority of peaceful people in the Middle East. . . . The war is not a struggle against Muslims, the Muslim religion, it is a struggle of honorable, peaceful people throughout the world against the few who want to impose their vision.”

Obama made much of his ability to serve as an intermediary between the United States and Muslim people, having lived in the largest Muslim country and having Muslim relatives. He sees himself as a bridge between the Muslim world and America: “My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. . . . I’ve come to understand [ ] that regardless of your faith–and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers–regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.”

Bush lacked Obama’s familial and other connections to the Muslim world, but nonetheless made it a point to express the importance of respecting the universality of faith. “I believe in an almighty God,” he told al-Arabiya in January 2008, “and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace.”

Obama says his job is “to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.” Likewise President Bush used his office to facilitate cultural understanding. “We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight,” he told al-Arabiya in October 2007. “This is the seventh one in the seven years I’ve been the President. It gives me a chance to say ‘Ramadan Mubarak.’ The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country.”

On relations with Iran, it s hard to find any differences between the two leaders. President Obama was quick to point out that he was seeking a broad approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: “I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.” Likewise President Bush: “I, of course, said all options are on the table, but I made a pledge to the American people we will work diplomatically to solve the problem.” President Obama distinguished between the Iranian people and the regime: “Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization.” Likewise President Bush: “I view the Iranian regime as a danger. I also believe that the Iranian people are not bad–they’re good people, and that they can have a better way forward.”

President Obama blames the regime for the difficulties between the two countries: “Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past–none of these things have been helpful.” And so President Bush: “It’s the decisions of the government of Iran that have led to the isolation of the country. And that if this government would only be responsible, would listen to the world, would not continue its weapons program–the idea of being able to have the capacity to make a weapon–then there’s a better way forward for the Iranian people.”

And if the regime in Tehran is willing to talk it out? “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” says Obama. Said Bush: “I have said that if they suspend their nuclear program we will be at the table.”

Of course one doesn’t expect the two leaders to have identical foreign policies. But neither should one expect them to be radically different. As these comparative interviews illustrate, great-power politics imposes certain demands on our leaders. The contrasts in the interviews tended to be on the level of specificity–Obama the rookie speaks in broad conceptual terms, Bush the (by then) old hand gave much more detailed answers closely linked to ongoing initiatives and events. We will see more of that from Obama in time. Meanwhile those who were expecting the sweeping substantive changes in U.S. foreign and national-security policy that were promised on the campaign trail will have to keep waiting.

– NRO contributor James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point.