By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Thursday’s speech by President Obama  on the upheaval in the Middle East is aimed at a global audience. But  it will also play out in a domestic and political — context as Mr.  Obama seeks a second term in the White House.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama has sought to strike a balance between  reaching out to the Muslim world while also combating terrorism and  pushing for progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians
.  The as-yet unfulfilled promise of that approach, which he described in a  speech in Cairo in 2009, helped win him the Nobel Peace Prize early in  his presidency.
But the effort to construct a cohesive narrative for American voters  about his administration’s efforts in the region has proved more  difficult. The peace process has been largely halted. The move away from  Bush-era terrorism policies has gone more slowly than expected. And the  uprisings in the Arab world have forced case-by-case decisions that  sometimes appear contradictory.
“They need to make the case for why all of this stuff matters to  Americans and give some narrative that makes sense for all the different  things we are doing,” said Marc Lynch, the director of the Institute  for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. 
Mr. Obama’s decision to launch the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin laden  has clearly helped to define for Americans a new Obama story in the  region. Thursday’s speech will give the president the opportunity to put  those actions in a broader context, Mr. Lynch said. Jewish voters are a small but critical Democratic constituency in  terms of both votes and fund-raising; Mr. Obama, a Democrat, won nearly  80 percent of the Jewish vote in the 2008 election. That support will be  particularly important Mr. Obama, who has been viewed with suspicion by  some Jewish voters because of his early efforts to put pressure on  Israel to stop settlement construction.
“Pivoting into presidential campaign season, they are going to want  to have in place a robust story to tell,” said Mr. Lynch, who writes the  Middle East blog for Foreign Policy magazine. “The more that they can  choose a few clear themes that fit together into a clear story, the  better.”
Thursday’s speech at the State Department is designed to be the first  in a series of rhetorical opportunities for the president. On Friday,  he will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a  conversation that will be closely watched by the Jewish community in the  United States.
And this weekend, Mr. Obama will address the American Israel Public  Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the United States.  Together, the post-speech events will give the president a chance to  assert his support for Israel early in the 2012 campaign cycle.
White House aides who previewed the speech for reporters Wednesday  said that the president would use the opportunity to speak about the  Middle East and North Africa region as a whole and how its challenges  relate to the United States.
“Now, having wound down the Iraq war and continuing to do so, and  having taken out Osama bin Laden, we are beginning to turn the page to a  more positive and hopeful future for U.S. policy in the region,” a  senior administration official said. “The president will have the  opportunity to speak broadly about the change in the Middle East and  North Africa, the implications for U.S. policy, and some concrete  proposals for American policy going forward.”
Whom will he be speaking to? Leaders and citizens in the Middle East,  of course. But several different American audiences will also be  listening carefully to what he says. Here are some of them:
 * His 2012 rivals: Before Bin Laden was killed, the  Republican candidates for president had begun attacking Mr. Obama as a  weak, feckless leader with no backbone. That argument  is more difficult  to make now.
But Mr. Obama’s rivals for the White House are not going to back away  entirely from their criticisms of his foreign policy. They will be  listening to his speech on Thursday for ways to criticize his policies  toward Iran and his outreach to the Arab world.
They will also be watching closely for any evidence that Mr. Obama is  being critical of Israel in the hopes they could use that as an  electoral advantage.
* Liberals: Mr. Obama’s base has been frustrated at  times by his willingness to continue anti-terrorism policies put in  place by his predecessor. The terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo  Bay — which remains open despite Mr. Obama’s promise to close it — is a  constant reminder of their dissatisfaction.
The speech gives Mr. Obama a chance to describe how his approach to  the region fulfills his campaign promises and to claim that his policies  have worked better than Mr. Bush’s. That could help energize his base —  a crucial part of the path toward getting reelected.
* American Jews: The president’s early decision to  press Israel to end settlements was done in the hope that it might  kick-start peace talks with the Palestinians. In fact, after the  Israelis balked, the policy has so far failed to move the peace process  along. The administration’s top negotiator, former senator George  Mitchell, quit last week.
But in the process, the tough-love approach to Israel caused friction  between Mr. Obama and some Jewish voters. That could be particularly  important in certain swing states.
 * Congress: The debates in the House and Senate  during the next 18 months are likely to focus primarily on the domestic  economy. But with the House under Republican control, leaders there may  be looking for ways to question Mr. Obama’s handling of foreign policy,  especially in the volatile Middle East.
Republicans struggled at the height of the Middle East uprisings  earlier this year, first criticizing the president’s lack of action in  Libya and then later criticizing the aggressive use of force in ways  that Mr. Obama said would halt the slaughter of those leading the  uprising.
Democratic lawmakers, too, will be watching the speech for clues to  the defense they may have to mount to Republican criticism. Last year’s  extended debate over a nuclear treaty with Russia showed how differences  over foreign policy can sometimes play out in the halls of Congress. (NYTimes.com)