With only six months left for the US presidential elections, many in the region began using the sort of language that favours any of the Democratic contestants. They hope that the November 4 election would drive either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to the White House and hence end the Republican era. These hopes are based on the assumptions that the Democrats, if they get elected, will immediately pull out US troops from Iraq and resume Bill Clinton's effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and ease the pressure for change on Arab leaders. Even if the Republican candidate wins, many believe, he would most probably seek less ideological foreign policy.
These assumptions need to be heeded cautiously, however, given the complications of the US political system and the factors that interfere in the foreign policy making process.
To start with, the Middle East is not as dominant an issue in the presidential election as many projected it would be six months or a year ago. Two reasons for this include the relative success of the surge in Iraq and the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear capabilities. These issues, however, are certainly not distant from the minds of voters, since both Republicans and Democrats rank Iraq among their top two concerns in the presidential campaign. The Middle East is also a more prominent issue for Republicans than it is for Democrats, as the latter seem more comfortable focusing on domestic issues. The scope of American foreign policy for Republicans is defined through the perspective of the war on terror. For Democrats, foreign policy also includes issues such as global warming and the effects of globalisation.
In a more practical level, however, John McCain, the Republican candidate, continues to trumpet his longstanding support for the "surge" strategy in Iraq. He maintains that victory is still possible and that the US should continue to aggressively seek it. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McCain considers Hamas a terrorist organisation and will thus refrain from pressuring Israel to give substantial concessions towards a lasting settlement. He also upholds the Bush administration's hardline stance towards Iran, unequivocally denying it access to nuclear weapons and refusing to rule out military options for enforcing that policy.
Although the Democratic candidates have focused on each other's voting record on the Iraq war, in recent months, they have quieted their rhetoric on Iraq as the surge has reduced the overall level of violence. When confronted with the issue, Obama and Clinton underline the sustained failure of the Iraqi government to pass certain political benchmarks. But, eventually, a Democratic president would face a substantial conundrum when faced with Iraq. Essentially, he or she would have to choose between troop withdrawal - the equivalent of accepting defeat - and sustaining higher troop levels in order to achieve some degree of success, thus alienating and angering the party base.
On the Israeli-Palestinian front, Hillary Clinton is expected to follow the same basic model and policies her husband did during his presidency, something president Bush has been trying to do in recent months with little success. While Obama's position on this issue and others remains somewhat of a mystery, his statements reflect a greater willingness than most to employ diplomacy as a means to revolve conflicts.
Thorny issue
Iran for the Democrats is another thorny issue. Here also we do not find much difference with the Republicans. Democrats insist that they will not take the military option off the table and will not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.
As far as democracy is concerned, both parties hold a much more realist worldview than what existed before the current administration. They now admit that democratic efforts in the Middle East are not quick fixes for the long-term challenge of protecting US interests in the region. Hamas's electoral victory has scared them, relegating democracy promotion to the bottom of their agenda.
Overall, one should not expect a dramatic change in US foreign policy toward the Middle East regardless of who wins the seat of power in Washington in this year's presidential elections.
Dr Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.
