John Kerry talks tough on terrorism and in support of Israel, but his desire to get the US honourably out of Iraq may lead to a wholesale re-evaluation of US Middle East policy, writes Hassan Nafaa* People might not know more about John Kerry other than that he is the Democratic candidate in the forthcoming US presidential elections, but everybody knows who George W Bush is. I would bet that if every eligible voter in our so-called global village had the chance to vote in the US elections, the ballot would come out overwhelmingly in favour of Kerry, not out of any great fondness for him, but because of the universal loathing for his competitor. The seething antipathy for Bush that has been festering abroad has gradually seeped into the US and is manifesting itself in a growing tide of opinion that is dead set against giving that evil fanatic a second chance to preside over the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. Barring any surprises that the Bush administration might concoct, there is an increasing likelihood that Kerry will be the next occupant of the Oval Office, which raises the question as to what impact this will have on US foreign policy. If we were to turn for an answer to the Arab media, which generally gauge US foreign policy in terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict, we would get an overall gloomy picture. Arab analysts predict little, if any, substantial change in Washington's attitude on this issue. Indeed, they believe that the Democratic candidate may be even more pro-Israeli than Bush, judging by his and his running mate's unctuous -- even provocative -- statements, even after the International Court of Justice issued its ruling on the separation wall. In addition, when he outlined his platform during the Democratic Convention, Kerry made no mention of the role he would like to see Washington play in the peace process, as though to convey to the Arabs the message that the US will accept whatever solution Tel Aviv comes up with unilaterally and without outside pressure. There is a strong trend in the mainstream Democratic Party leadership to demonstrate unswerving support for Israel and to hold the Palestinian Authority (PA) alone responsible for the violence and destruction on the ground and the failure of the peace process. Recent media reports on the Kerry campaign team seem to confirm their willingness and readiness to let Tel Aviv call all the shots in the Middle East. Although I would grant that these analyses and predictions follow logically from an accurate perception of the nature of US-Israeli relations, there is another way to look at things. This perspective proceeds from the premise that there is a significant likelihood that if Kerry is elected US foreign policy will undergo a major shift that will ultimately impact positively on Washington's approach to the affairs of the Middle East. Although the Arab-Israeli conflict is a central determinant of US policies and attitudes towards the Middle East in general and the Arab world in particular, other issues may overshadow it, notably the combined questions of Iraq, terrorism, religious extremism and political reform in the Arab world. The more a Kerry administration feels it must adopt a radically new approach to these issues, the greater the chances that it will find itself compelled to revise America's handling of the Arab- Israeli conflict. Ultimately, however, the degree of this shift will depend on how the Arab world conducts its relations with the US and the rest of the world in the coming phase. In other words, it will fall to the Arabs to generate a climate conducive to an American policy shift and then to capitalise on this change and strengthen its momentum. Perhaps this view might surprise those who heard Kerry's address to the Democratic Convention in which his determination to establish his patriotic credentials made him appear almost as fanatical as Bush. Clearly he was determined to come across as a strong and resolute leader, and perhaps more gung-ho than Bush himself on the safety and security of the American people and their interests, towards the protection of which he declared himself ready to take unilateral military action, including preemptive war, if necessary. "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military," he proclaimed. However, upon closer inspection of his speech, Kerry emerges at a far remove from the wild-eyed zealot. He insisted in no uncertain terms that the US should not be led into wrong and unjustified wars. He expressed his belief that there had to be many technical and ethical checks on the recourse to arms. American troops should not be sent off to war in insufficient numbers and improperly equipped, all intelligence has to be thoroughly and impartially verified, White House officials must listen to the advice of the military experts, etc. Kerry also made it abundantly clear that he felt that the war on Iraq was wrong and unnecessary and that now what was needed was an "exit strategy" to bring American troops home from a battle they should never have been sent off to fight in the first place. This point was driven home so forcefully in his speech as to lead us to believe that the search for an honourable way out of Iraq will top the Kerry agenda if he wins the elections. Simultaneously, it would be naive to think that the US would easily relinquish its strategic aims in Iraq if not compelled to do so. One therefore envisions that, in the beginning at least, Kerry will attempt to accomplish the aims of his predecessor but through other means and in an entirely different style. This matter of style is crucial. To the American liberal elite, the Bush administration has recklessly isolated America worldwide and, more importantly, dangerously and needlessly soured its relations with its traditional allies in the West. If Kerry wins, therefore, the initial foreign policy thrust of his administration will be to restore mutual trust and confidence in Washington's transatlantic relations. In the process, he will attempt to rehabilitate the concept of "American leadership of the global order", within which framework Europe is generally prepared to work, as opposed to the project of "global hegemony" that is so intrinsically associated with the provocative tenets espoused by the American Christian-Zionist ultra right. But, if Kerry is to restore transatlantic relations to their normal course, he will have to offer some concessions to the EU so as to enable it to assume an international role commensurate with its global economic weight. This, in turn, would set into motion a dynamic of give-and-take that could lead to the establishment of new rules for the conduct of international relations at this stage in the development of the world order. If this analysis is correct then we might very well see the day -- and perhaps not that far in the future -- when a Kerry administration will find itself forced to revive the Middle East roadmap and to cooperate sincerely and constructively with the other members of the Quartet in its implementation. This would constitute an important key to creating the regional and international climate conducive to an honourable exit from Iraq. Of course much will remain contingent upon the forces of extremism in the Middle East and elsewhere, before and after the American elections. It is more apparent than ever that the interests of extremist forces in the East and West have become intrinsically intertwined. Extremists in the Arab and Islamic world are obviously keen on a Bush victory in the elections. With Bush as president, they believe, it would be easier for them to lure the US into more intensive military involvement in the region and mire it in a morass of urban guerrilla warfare, which would wreak untold moral and material attrition on the US and on the Middle Eastern regimes it supports or that support it. To the extremists in the US and Israel, Bush is the man to fight the "terrorism" that struck in Washington and New York and that is striking in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. With a religious fervour no less intense than that of the extremists in this region, they see in him the champion of nothing less than a crusade aimed at uprooting Islamic fundamentalism, the primary breeder of terrorism, and at paving the way for the creation of Greater Israel and the second coming of Christ! In this regard, I imagine that what Bush wishes for most at this point is for Bin Laden to deliver another devastating strike, so he could capitalise on the subsequent hysteria to unleash the American military machine against the regimes in Syria and Iran. I would wager that Sharon's greatest wish at this point is for a Palestinian civil war to erupt, giving him the excuse to launch a massive incursion into the Palestinian territories aimed at eliminating the leaderships of all the Palestinian factions (on the grounds of the peril they would pose if they gained control over the West Bank and Gaza and toppled the "legitimate" PA), to be followed with an incursion into southern Lebanon to eliminate Hizbullah. With these combined assaults, the Bush-Sharon phalanx will have tightened their noose on the region, with the US controlling the Syrian-Iranian front and Israel the Palestinian- Lebanese front. The American people may not be as aware as they should be of the danger of the religious fanaticism of the American neo- conservatives and the threat their alliance with the ultra right in Israel poses to peace and stability in the Middle East and the world. Nevertheless, an increasing segment of American people have had their eyes opened to the fact that Bush deceived them and that he, therefore, must go. His mere departure from the Oval Office will mark the beginning of the decline of the forces of extremism and the rise of the forces of moderation, hopefully setting the trend towards more rational and peaceful means for resolving the world's problems. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
