President Obama has been signaling since well before his election that he would be making an important address to the whole Muslim world. Expectation had therefore been aroused that the United States is about to change its policy in the Middle East and perhaps everywhere with a Muslim population. There was widespread but largely unspoken anxiety that the Islamic element in his family tree might give precedence to emotion over national interest. The post-election interview with al-Arabiyya television and the bow to the Saudi King in London seemed ominous omens. I think I was hardly alone in expecting bad things when at last Obama arrived in Cairo, the venue chosen to broadcast what is in his mind about Muslims.

A new beginning for the relationship between the Unites States and Muslims, that is what he puts on offer. A certain high rhetorical style is becoming his trademark and it allows him the appeal almost of preaching, able to switch from sounding tough to appearing frail — an unusual gift in a politician. This speech has an element of apology, with its implicit acceptance that the United States is responsible for the bad old relationship, and surely that is how most of his Muslim listeners will take it. It’s all George W. Bush’s fault, is it not? The Arabic language greeting, and several references to the Koran, will have served to suggest to his listeners that really he is one of them. And under cover of this bit of play-acting, he advised tolerance, repudiation of violence, rights for men and women, and a carefully measured move towards democracy and universal values.

In reality, one good reason why there is no democracy is that the United States has been a steady supporter over decades of authoritarian regimes, for instance in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. George W. Bush made serious attempts to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and look how unpopular that made him. Obama does not propose stopping the supply of advanced weaponry which actually keeps in power Arab dictators and allies who are prime obstacles to everything he is asking for, democracy included. Humbug? Probably not. The situation is just more complex than he allows.

Another flaw in the reasoning is the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off. No progress is possible unless and until Hamas forswears violence, but that means tackling Iran as it is orchestrating that violence. He offered no practical proposals about to do this, only reiterating that Israel has to stop settlements on the West Bank, something about which Obama seems to be obsessing. Israel dismantled its settlements on the Gaza Strip and instantly was repaid with terror. Iran anyhow wants a one-state Islamist solution, and that is another issue too complex to be raised in Cairo.

The speech was shown in full on Egyptian television, and listeners everywhere in whatever languages can hardly doubt Obama’s well-meaning intentions (an exception is Osama bin Laden who at the very same moment chose to put out his Islamist counter-proposals). The audience applauded. President Obama smiled, he waved, but as he left the platform he seemed mysteriously frail. On balance, he probably did not much good, but no harm either.