In the days following President Barack Obama’s speech at the
Democratic National Convention in September 2012, administration
officials and U.S. media seesawed over a post-convention “bump” that
elevated his standing above Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Numerous
polls, including a recent
Fox News survey, marked
a widening gap between the candidates on a variety of issues, with
Obama largely taking the lead: education (+14), Medicare (+11),
terrorism (+8 points) and foreign policy, where Obama rated 15 points
higher than Romney.
However, no matter who wins this November, people in the United
States and Middle East will likely be stuck with largely the same U.S.
policies toward the Middle East and North Africa that have held sway for
decades.
Romney Runs on Traditional GOP Diesel
Although Romney’s policies in the Arab world are masked by ambiguity,
scarecrows and red herrings designed to project a friendly aura toward
the region, his administration runs on traditional GOP (Grand Old Party)
diesel and
exploits a widespread anti-Muslim trend in the mainstream Republican party.
While blaming Obama for “diminishing American leadership” is standard
fare, and a valid point when it comes to the Middle East, Romney’s
hawkish and insensitive tendencies toward local populations and
fledgling pro-democracy movements in the region are undeniable. In his
own words, Romney’s circle is
staffed by pollsters who apparently are not “going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”
More importantly, however, in many areas outside Iran and Israel’s airspace, Romney’s proposals mirror Obama’s. In his
October 2011 white paper,
titled “American Century Strategy: secure America’s enduring interests
and values,” Romney demonstrates the numerous points of mutual agreement
between himself and Obama while exposing the toxicity beneath his sweet
rhetoric.
According to this document, the “unfinished” project for an “American
Century” is something his administration would complete, and the Arab
revolutions something to be manipulated under the banner of democracy: "To protect our enduring national interests and to promote our
ideals, a Romney administration will pursue a strategy of supporting
groups and governments across the Middle East to advance the values of
representative government, economic opportunity, and human rights, and
opposing any extension of Iranian or jihadist influence. The Romney
administration will strive to ensure that the Arab Spring is not
followed by an Arab winter."
In a “dangerous, destructive, chaotic” world, Romney plans to “lead
the free world” as the “free world leads the entire world.” This policy
includes joining Israel’s crusade against Iran’s nuclear sites, a
potential war that an estimated 60-70% of Americans disapprove of, as a
means of projecting America’s strength.
Two Sides of the Same Imperialist Coin
Obama, on the other hand, has fashioned himself into an arbitrator of
war and peace, wielding a Nobel Peace Prize in one fist and Osama bin
Laden’s head in the other.
Four years removed from his promise of a new era of engagement
between the U.S. government and Muslim world, negative perceptions that
have accumulated between both sides as a result of decades of war,
intervention, exploitation and continual strife continue to hold sway.
Obama is not personally responsible for this entrenched status quo,
but he is to blame for overselling and under-delivering on his promise
to repair relations with the ambiguously-defined Muslim world. Under
Obama’s watch, U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf’s sphere of influence has
continued to lack “American leadership.”
The race for bin Laden represented a triumph for whoever reached him
first and Obama will likely reap the personal benefits of this success
for the rest of his life. The glorified kill, along with an increase in
drone warfare across the region and the strategic rise of U.S. Special
Forces missions, has allowed Obama to continue his foreign policy of
“less force” with minimal domestic resistance.
Obama’s case for non-military action against Iran, withdrawing from
Iraq and Afghanistan, and promise to “disrupt terror plots wherever they
form” became more convincing after bin Laden’s death on May 2nd, 2011.
Well-meaning critics of America’s new military strategy find it
difficult to attack a policy that costs less American lives and taxpayer
dollars.
Iraq & Afghanistan
Obama and Romney have wrangled over their respective policy positions
on Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, they share more common ground
than differences and have both failed to present a realistic approach to
U.S. engagement with these countries. The President has grown fond of bragging that he “ended the war in Iraq,” and has refused to unspin Romney’s own policy, as
ongoing Iraqi casualties make for dangerous political ground.
With regard to Iraq, Romney claims that “a democratic Iraq allied to
the United States is within our reach,” but that Obama has “threaten[ed]
to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Promising to use a “broad array of foreign policy tools – diplomatic,
economic, military” to bring Iraq within the U.S. sphere of influence,
Romney focuses on Obama’s “failure” to install a residual military
force. He ignores the political void that the administration has
encouraged by supporting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. To the extent
that the Obama administration has responded to Romney’s attacks, it has
described his approach to Iraq as “tragic.”
In reality, Obama and Romney have ended up in al-Maliki’s leaky boat,
a circumstance that neither candidate likes to discuss. Both fail to
acknowledge (at least publicly) that Washington’s deficiencies in Iraq
stem from political inequalities, not military shortages. Prolonging the
deployment of U.S. troops under the authority of the divisive al-Maliki
would have added to the Iraqi prime minister’s leverage over Sunni,
Shia, and Kurdish political opponents; an extension of American
involvement would have generated as many security problems as it would
have solved.
The incumbent and challenger find similar common ground in
Afghanistan, where Romney agrees with the bulk of Obama’s strategy
despite public feuding. In line with Obama administration policy,
Romney’s white paper approves of the 2014 transition to Afghan security
forces and demands greater accountability from Afghanistan and
Pakistan’s governments. Contrary to Obama’s DNC announcement that “in
2014, our longest war [Afghanistan] will be over,” his administration –
like Romney’s – hopes to maintain a long-term security presence in the
country after 2014.
Romney opposes negotiating with the Taliban and still intends to
eliminate the group from Afghanistan, an unrealistic move that would
ultimately extend the war. Much like Obama, Romney is liable to send air
or ground troops across Pakistan’s border in search of the elusive
Haqqani network, one of the Afghan Taliban’s most organized arms and a
major thorn in U.S. strategy. Such a move would likely perpetuate
Afghanistan’s war by causing new friction between Washington and
Islamabad.
The Illusion of Choice
The greatest regional divergence between the candidates centers
around U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran. On this front, Romney
believes he can score fast points by portraying himself as the
anti-Obama. For his part, Obama has remained focused on isolating Iran
globally and has tread cautiously around talk of war, in response both
to advice from America’s military leadership and public resistance to
another “big” war in the Gulf.
While conceding that economic and diplomatic isolation is necessary,
Romney insists that defusing Iran’s nuclear ambitions can only be
achieved through the real threat of war – a plan that includes
“repairing relations with Israel.” Unlike Obama, Romney would “never
refuse a meeting” with Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu (
a story that the White House denied), reject Israel’s insistence on a “red-line” for stopping Iran’s enrichment program, or throw Israel “under the bus.
Romney casts Obama as “pro-Palestinian,” reinforcing the twisted
state of U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict under either
candidate. In reality, Obama has abandoned the Palestinians and spent
far more energy confronting the Iranians, as the Israelis prefer.
Upon taking office, Obama announced that he would break from the Bush
administration’s 11th-hour drive for peace between Israelis and
Palestinians and pursue an equitable two-state solution “from day one.”
Sadly, Obama has fallen into the same trap of bias and inaction, even
excluding the Palestinians from his acceptance speech at the DNC. If
peace is harder to make than war, it stands to reason that greater
energy must be applied.
As for Romney, he is far from eager to help the Palestinians and
certainly more passionate about the Israeli cause. He claims that Iran,
not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, serves as the region’s central
issue. Tehran’s regional policies admittedly run on a variety of
unrelated interests, from Syria and Afghanistan to its hegemonic dispute
with Saudi Arabia. Its nuclear ambitions may beyond compromise. Yet, at
the same time, one cannot help observing that the Islamic Republic of
Iran has never known a world with a sovereign Palestinian state. Should
such a state come to be, one wonders how Iran’s regional ambitions and
strategies might change.
Continuity on the Arabian Peninsula
In Yemen, the current administration has deployed
Obama’s trusted counterterrorism adviser John Brennan
as its lord of war and occasional senior “diplomat” in the country.
Both he and U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, Gerald Feierstein, are extremely
unpopular figures due to U.S. handling of Yemen’s ongoing revolution,
its extensive drone program, and other covert U.S. activities in the
country.
Romney would likely follow similar policies in Yemen by utilizing
drones, Special Forces and CIA personnel to safeguard U.S. interests.
As Obama and Romney both operate their regional agendas on a steep
Iranian tilt, U.S. policy toward Bahrain would also stay consistent
between administrations – planted firmly on the side of Bahraini King
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s crackdown against pro-democracy forces.
America’s counterrevolutionary actions in select regional states have
reinforced the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy in the region,
especially toward the Libya and Syria interventions. Rather than
pointing to this inconsistency, Romney has instead accused Obama of
encouraging an “Islamic winter,” while portraying himself as tougher on
Iran and Islamists.
Conclusion: Marooned on Hope Island
Given his own positions, Romney is clearly incapable of fostering
lasting stability and peace in the Middle East. Improving the trajectory
of U.S. policy in the region requires the type of personality that
Obama promised and never delivered, making his failures historically
significant.
Poll after
poll concludes
that Obama fell into an enormous trust gap left by previous
administrations. Too many Muslims still perceive America as a unilateral
actor in the region and
an outright threat to
their national interests. Accordingly, in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Yemen,
Pakistan, the Palestinian territories and other regional countries
entangled within U.S. foreign policy, Obama’s popularity remains very
low.
Romney is minimally concerned with public relations in these
countries. He is, nevertheless, right one on account: Obama has failed
to deliver the leadership that he promised in the Middle East. Romney
would, however, offer no respite from Obama’s fox-like friendship with
the Palestinians and pro-democracy actors in the region.
The dilemma of lesser evils may be an inherent problem of democracy,
but the ranking of America’s presidential candidates cannot be pegged to
the failures of past leaders, such as George W. Bush. Finding a truly
excellent candidate is an ideal worth pursuing. As for the diverse
peoples of the Middle East, nothing has changed since Obama entered the
Oval Office and nothing will change if Romney evicts him: they must
still free themselves of foreign interference on the path toward
determining their own future.
