When President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he announced that it was not to be taken as recognition of his own achievements, but rather "as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," reports The New York Times.

Mr. Obama is the third sitting US president to receive the international accolade. In his acceptance speech, Obama reiterated that he was far from achieving his goals, namely tackling global warming or brokering a peace in the Middle East.

"Related to the question of whether his record justified the award was the notion of whether Mr. Obama, to some degree, remains as much a symbol as a flesh-and-blood political leader," continues The New York Times.

The chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee explained that he singled out Obama's efforts on nuclear disarmament, particularly at the previous UN Security Council meeting, as deserving of recognition, according to Reuters. The Norwegian Committee praised the president for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," also citing his outreach to the Muslim world.

Some analysts also saw the prize as a final slap in the face for the Bush Administration from the European establishment, which resented what they called "cowboy diplomacy" in world affairs. US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters the prize could stimulate diplomacy.

However, James Carafano notes for NPR, "public diplomacy, nuclear disarmament, working through the United Nations and reaching out to the Islamic world were all put forward as hallmarks of the Obama way," which possibly places the American president in a difficult position.

Carafano argues that Obama now may be obliged to show tangible results, leaving little room for mishaps. He points out, "Those he needs to cooperate with can now demand a pretty high price for playing ball."

Hady Amr and Steven W. Barnes concur for McClatchy News that the prize also represents an opportunity for the president to build on his recent efforts to foster dialogue with Muslim communities.

Amr and Barnes comment that Shimon Peres, president of Israel and former co-recipient of the peace prize, said "Obama [has] captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." Meanwhile, Khaled Al-Batsh, a leader of the radicalized Islamic Jihad in Gaza, told Reuters on the day of the announcement, "Why should Obama be given a peace prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and his soldiers continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Both authors believe, however, that such comments "ring hollow" and that the international accolade stresses the "tremendous importance of the mindset and language of dialogue that he exemplifies."

Many people in the Arab world agree with the authors' praise. The initial reaction from the Arab world was "overwhelmingly positive," according to Voice of America. Middle Eastern leaders such as the former Egyptian Foreign Minister and Arab League Secretary-General Esmet Abdel Meguid, who was involved in Middle East peace talks for many years, said "Mr. Obama's award appears to be a positive development for peace in the region."

Saudi Arabia also praised the award, with Al-Watan, an influential Saudi daily noting, "Mr. Obama won the Peace prize for his overtures to the Arab and Islamic worlds, and especially for his June address at Cairo University."

The general manager of Al-Arabiya, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, explains in an op-ed for Asharq Al-Awsat how he believes that Obama deserved the award for propagating the idea of co-existence and peace between the Western and Muslim sides.

He adds, "Even the extremist groups in the region have been forced to mitigate their hostile tones after they discovered that the Arabs trust him till now."

Yet, despite VOA's claims of a positive reaction, other members of the Arab press beg to differ.

Habib Shaikh contends for the Saudi Gazette that the prize generated "mixed responses from Saudis and expatriates in the Kingdom."

Tarek A. Mishkhas, executive editor at Urdu News, stated, "It is too early for such a prize." Mishkhas explained that Obama's aims are great in theory, but he has to "push for what he promises such as a two-state solution for Palestine and lasting peace in the Middle East."

The Prize also sparked polarized reactions in Lebanon where many feel he has not yet earned one of the world's most prestigious awards, reports The Daily Star. According to the Beirut-based news site, many in Lebanon expressed concern that Obama has been presented the prize in the absence of any concrete results in the region.

"[It is] premature – the intention is there but the results aren't. Things are at 0 level, neither negative nor positive," comments Dany Moussa, a web developer based in the Metn. He added that the president "hadn't reached the level of achievement needed yet and failure remains a possibility."

Some argue that the Nobel committee intended the prize as an encouragement rather than a reward for the leader, who still faces many challenges on the international stage."The award will only help make the relationship better between the Muslim world and the US," says Josiane, a teacher from Byblos.

Finally, Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader MP Walid Jumblatt criticized granting a Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, saying that the latter hasn't made any peaceful achievement in the Middle East, further highlights The Daily Star."If one looks for it, they would not find the major peaceful achievement that US President Barack Obama made," Jumblatt wrote in PSP's Al-Anbaa weekly newspaper.