Dispatches

The story I penned for today's Tribune starts with the premise that President Barack Obama still has some work to do if he wants to "earn" his Nobel Peace Prize in the eyes of history – particularly as it relates to the long and violent conflict between the Israelis and Palestinieans in the Holy Land.

The L.A. Times tok a similar approach, asking a variety of scholars the question: "What should the president do to earn the prize?"

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists executive director Kennette Benedict says that Obama should being ralks with Russia about reducing nuclear arsenals, pull back from an earlier decision to install missile defense systems in eastern Europe, reach out to the Muslim world and re-initiate negotiations with North Korea to shut down its nuclear weapons program, among other things on a long to-do list.

"Oh, you say he's done all of these?" Benedict writes.

As such, Benedict echoes the sentiments of Southern Utah University international relations professor Michael Stathis, who noted that Obama's approach — appears to be singly responsible for a seachange in the way the world thinks about American leadership.

"Now, it's really quite incredible," Stathis explained. "We have a different standingwith our allies in Europe, a different standing with our neighbors in Latin America, a different standing in the Middle East."

In our conversation, Stathis compared it to a "miracle."

But even Stathis says the miracle worker doesn't have much hope of brokering a peace deal in the Holy Land. So if he's hoping to vindicate the Nobel committee of its controversial decision, he's going to have to  find successes elsewhere in the world.