The direction of the two US presidential candidates is the same. It's all a question of timing, concludes Amr Abdel-Ati The Middle East is expected to feature prominently in the debates between President Barack Obama and his rival, the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. There is a lot going on in this region that affects ordinary Americans. Take for example the American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or the potential of war between Israel and Iran, one that will inevitably disrupt oil supplies to the West. There is also the political and humanitarian crisis in Syria, and the future of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Recently, demonstrators in Egypt, Libya and Yemen drove the message home, with angry protests over a film insulting to Prophet Mohamed. The killing of the US ambassador and three embassy staffers in Libya came as a shock to many Americans, many of whom found President Obama at fault for failing to provide adequate protection to US missions and officials abroad. Let's not also forget that both Obama and Romney are vying for the approval of the Israel Lobby, which is in control not only of a major chunk of the media, but has an influence that extends far beyond the Jewish vote, which is estimated at a mere two per cent of the total US electorate. Mitt Romney has already gone to Israel, where he promised to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. The remark would have put him ahead of Obama in the eyes of the Israel Lobby, but Obama had already pre-empted his rival. Ahead of the visit, the incumbent US president signed a security agreement in which he pledged to help Israel with its Iron Dome anti-rocket system and the option to purchase US aerial refuelling KC-13s, which the Bush and Obama administrations had denied Israel in the past. Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli opposition leader was thrilled, calling the deal a "turning point" in US-Israeli cooperation. These days, Romney keeps telling everyone that Obama doesn't do much for Israel, but a mere glance at Obama's policies disproves this allegation. Obama did so much to help Israel that Defence Minister Ehud Barak said that he cannot recall a period in which the Americans were of more assistance to the Israelis than under Obama. For example, Obama defended Israel in various international forums, blocked the attempts of the Palestinian Authority to declare statehood, and vetoes all UN Security Council decisions condemning Israelis settlements. When he first got into office, Obama waxed lyrical about a future of peace between the Arabs and the Israelis. But none of his words came true, and the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu actively undermined his ideas didn't seem to bother him much. If re-elected, there is a chance that Obama may try to revive his peace plans. If Romney defeats him, the chances are that peace will go onto the backburner of US policy. Romney and Obama seem to hold divergent views on Iran. The incumbent president prefers to apply sanctions rather than force to resolve the issue, whereas Romney takes a more militant approach. Romney claims that if Obama is re-elected, Iran will make the bomb, but if he is elected instead, Iran will not be allowed to make the bomb. The Republican contender also criticises Obama for failing to give adequate support to the democratic protests in Iran in 2009. Still, both candidates said that they would use military force as a last resort against Iran. The difference between the two seems to be in emphasis, or at least timing. Obama will take military action if there is evidence Iran is making a bomb, while Romney is ready to go to war if Iran has all it needs to make a bomb -- or at least this is the impression he is giving. On Syria, Romney is also more hawkish. Both Obama and Romney are reluctant to endorse military intervention, or even a no-fly zone, but while Obama is holding back on arming the Free Syrian Army, Romney says he would be happy to send weapons to the anti-regime forces. Mind you, even Obama is capable of reversing his position in a pinch. When things got bloody in Libya in 2011, he sanctioned military intervention and offered help to the anti-Gaddafi rebels. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is trickier. Obama is still committed to a full withdrawal, whereas Romney says he would take the view of field commanders into consideration, which may mean a more gradual approach to withdrawal. Both candidates seem to agree on the continued use of pilotless planes in the bombing of "terrorist" targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Regardless of the winner, a change of leadership in the US will only bring about a partial change in US policy in the region. Romney may be the more hawkish of the two, but it is a difference of degree rather than direction. The writer is a researcher at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
