That passage is unintentionally funny. After all, for decades violence and intolerance have been central in Middle East affairs, and they will continue to be central. The dictatorships and aggressors have steadily gained in power at the UN. Indeed, the Obama Administration has supported many of these forces of violence and intolerance or, in other places, not stood up to them. After all, the minister of railroads in Pakistan, a country which has received billions in aid by the Obama Administration, has just offered a reward for murdering an American citizen without fear of any consequences for his regime. Amidst a thousand other examples that his offer gives a sense of the reality of the contemporary situation compared to Obama's rhetoric.
In 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's revolution said that Western observers thought the upheaval in his country was about the price of watermelons--that is, about how best to achieve prosperity--and that this was ridiculous. One-third of a century later, the Iranian regime is still in power and following Khomeini's radical approach. Why should we not expect the same to be true in Egypt and perhaps soon in Syria?
As I have said, there are many fine sentiments expressed on Iran, Israel-Palestinian issues, economic development, minority rights, condemning insults to all religions equally, and defending America’s freedom of speech. Yet these points have no relationship with what this president has actually done in the Middle East. For example, he has not made a single effective action, backed by real power and pressure, to defend the rights of women or Christians, not even in Iraq and Afghanistan where the United States had military forces and potentially effective influence.