The race to win the Democratic and Republican nomination for the November 2008 US presidential elections has just started. Although it is too early to know who is going to run for the No. 1 job in the country, many in the region and, perhaps, the world prefer a Democratic candidate over any Republican.
The general perception is that a Democrat president would order a quick pull out of US troops from Iraq; resume Bill Clinton's effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and ease the pressure for change on Arab leaders. These assumptions implicate great misunderstanding of US foreign policymaking and the system within which the US government operates and makes decisions, however.
In fact, American foreign policy involves multiple perspectives. Over the years, flawed perceptions have developed among those with special interests. These perceptions usually assume that American policy undergoes fundamental change every time a new president enters the White House and that it could be equally sabotaged by rivalries based on partisan politics. These assumptions are widely held, but radically oversimplify the process of policy making in the US.
When we think of American policy in the Middle East, which concerns us most, we must always bear in mind that this policy is not an isolated area of interest or a routine bureaucratic job. Rather, it involves three levels of decision-making that are constantly shifting: the global, the regional, and the actual area in conflict. Any administration will always have global aims, such as containing the Soviet Union, promoting American values, free trade...etc. Sometimes, these aims seem to relate directly to the Middle East, as in Jimmy Carter's pursuit to secure oil supplies. At other times the Middle East is peripheral to the administration's main concern, as it was to Harry Truman's containment policy or John Kennedy's multiple options doctrine. There will also be regional aims, such as the promotion of pro-American regimes or the attempt to build Iran as a policeman of the Gulf. Finally, there may be special interest in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, as in Clinton's aspiration to occupy a place in history through the gate of resolving the oldest world conflict.
In any administration, the global perspective will be paramount, however. Regional objectives or localised goals, no matter how important they are, cannot be allowed to restrict or contradict global objectives. To understand an administration, it is important to identify its global objectives, define the degree and intensity of consensus, and analyse how the Middle East fits in it. Every president begins with foreign policy priorities and objectives, however obscure and inarticulate. Most, if not all, of the president's key advisers share these primary objectives; they pay attention to the Middle East to the extent that it seems critical to their global aims.
After September 11, 2001, the Middle East - culture, religion, politics and societies - became the focus of US global strategy. "Anti-terrorism" was similarly transformed into a state ideology, replacing the anti-communist consensus of the Cold War. Republicans and Democrats share now the premises and the determination to win the "war on terror", as they once shared the objective of defeating communism.
Auxillary factors
One must also recognise that there are auxiliary factors that determine the content of American policy, such as: the basic assumptions of the president, the individuals on whom he relies for advice, and the resulting decision-making system which converts ideas into policies.
If we examine the assumptions held by most of the Democratic candidates and their close advisers in the light of these factors, we find that most of them, if not all, are not genuinely different from those held by the Republicans. The new "globalistic" orientation unleashed by President George W. Bush, for example, is a notion that has been for long advocated by Democrats. The doctrine of American expansion under the banner of exporting freedom and democracy, and building a global hegemony, are also Democratic principles.
Having said that little change is expected in US policy towards the Middle East under any new president in the White House.
Dr Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.
