Of the many tired shibboleths of Washington foreign policy, the tiredest is the assertion that back in the day - an entirely mythical day - partisanship stopped at the waters edge. If anyone still nurtured this saccharine illusion, the Iraq war and the subsequent battle to draw down troops effectively dispelled the notion. And certainly the race to take the White House in 2009 has had the predictable effect of deepening partisan divisions. Ironically, however, as the chasm between true believers in the electorate has deepened, the distinctions among the top candidates have paled. When it comes to the Middle East and the challenges of the war on terror, all support Israel, believe in a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and are tough on Iran, and all endorse an increase in the size of the military. Only on the question of Iraq do the differences remain stark and uncompromising. These are the broad brushstrokes of policy that paint a picture for voters, yet they form only the outlines of a foreign policy. After one of these candidates takes the oath of office in 2009, nuance will prove critical; principles will underpin decisions; experience will tell. Day-to-day decisions about dialogue with the likes of Ahmadinejhad, conferences with Bashar Al-Assad and trade with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps matter when it comes to actually governing. And on these issues there will be significant differences. As of February 2008 there are four candidates left standing, though Republican candidate Mike Huckabee has been mathematically eliminated from the race. (Indeed, it is tempting to include Huckabee in any review, as his comments on foreign policy have run the gamut from hilarious to loopy, but because he has no shot at the White House, comparisons are invidious.) Of the remaining players, senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama, McCain is clearly the most experienced and consistent hand, a veteran of 22 years in the Senate and a respected voice on national security. He is best known as the most steadfast advocate of the surge in Iraq, the success of which has tracked evenly with his own resurgence as a presidential candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama supported the surge, though Clinton has been less relentlessly critical. Both suggest that upon election they will immediately move to withdraw troops from Iraq. Hillary Clinton, however, has conceded that under her leadership there could be troops on the ground for many years to come. As to the question of what will happen to Iraq once US troops are drawn down, both Democratic candidates are persuaded that Iraq s neighbors, high-level working groups, the United Nations and (presumably) more sincere efforts at reconciliation among Iraq s warring parties will do the trick. Like his compatriots on both sides of the aisle, McCain supports sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program, doesn t rule out the use of military force in the event Tehran chooses not to relinquish that program and otherwise supports a tough line on the Islamic republic. Unlike his two rivals, he has not suggested that he will launch his first term as president by initiating immediate direct dialogue with Tehran or by renewing diplomatic ties. Indeed, McCain is the only candidate of four who does not advocate restoring relations while Iran is developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism. Barack Obama is the most forward leaning of the group, strongly opposed to any military action (though he won t rule it out ), a proponent of diplomatic engagement without preconditions and an earnest believer in dangling carrots for better Iranian performance. He opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill, which stated that it should be the policy of the United States to roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous proxies, and that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.... Hillary Clinton, whose antipathy toward the IRGC appears greater than her antipathy toward George Bush, supported the amendment. On questions relating to Israel and to the peace process, all three candidates have spoken enthusiastically about Israel s defense and about the need to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem. None has been particularly identified with the issue and only McCain has been consistently pro-Israel. Before her political career, Mrs. Clinton s most famous non-statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consisted of an ill-chosen peck on Suha Arafat s cheek in the wake of Arafat s suggestion that Israel used poison gas on Palestinian civilians. Since then, she has carefully embraced a pro-Israel line that has deviated little from that of well known peace processors and friends of Israel such as Dennis Ross. Both she and McCain support the separation wall. Obama is much more of an unknown; some suggest that he was no friend to Israel before the gleam of the presidency shone in his eye. They point to an unconfirmed but oft-repeated comment to the effect that he would be more up front about his pro-Palestinian sympathies once political constraints were off. Publicly, however, Obama has been virtually indistinguishable from his opponents. True, he has friends who are well known for their anti-Israel views and advisors who have suggested that the Iraq war was, at least in part, motivated by the special interests of Jews. Yet he has other advisors who are thoughtful supporters of the Jewish state. Finally, there s the question of terrorism. On this matter, each candidate is open to charges of inconsistency. McCain asserts that the United States military should not enter Pakistan, which most experts and intelligence analysts agree is now the heartland of al-Qaeda. Clinton argues that the United States should increase aid to Pakistan. And Obama has suggested the US might invade. How to resolve these mixed messages? Obama believes an invasion of Iran is not appropriate, but one of Pakistan is? Clinton is irate about the Iranian regime, but not Pakistan s, which has turned a blind eye to terrorism? McCain supports isolating Iran, a continued US presence in Iraq and a hard line on other terror groups, but believes President Musharaf is an ally? These positions are hard, nay impossible to reconcile. More dissonant still, Barack Obama believes he, as US president, should sit and jaw with Syrian and Iranian dictators, but should bomb Peshawar? Because American elections do not (for the most part) reward risk taking, parsing between the candidates is a continuous challenge. As a result, political soothsayers analyze the candidates foreign policy advisors: Obama mainstay Zbigniew Brzezinski and Clinton money-man Hassan Nemazee met with Bashar al-Assad only days after the assassination of master terrorist Imad Mughniyeh. McCain advisor Richard Armitage once referred to Iran as a democracy. Does it matter? The coming decade in the Middle East promises serious threats and uncertain transitions. New leaders will take power in Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. Iran will likely have nuclear weapons. Hizballah will grow as Lebanon falters. Does experience matter in steeling America to national security challenges? Some suggest that it is difficult for any American president to do harm or to radically change the course of American foreign policy, enmeshed as he or she is in a permanent bureaucracy and constrained by the Congress and the mores of the foreign policy establishment. Others argue that only a fresh and conciliatory approach to friend and enemy alike can ensure America s safety. And conservatives, as is their wont, will argue that only a strong America, true to its principles and cognizant of its enemies can protect the nation. Perhaps a better way to ask the question is to ponder this: Who will be best in the White House should the American homeland come under attack as it did on 9/11, as it assuredly will again? From Beirut, Riyadh or Jerusalem, the answer may be different. From Washington, it seems quite clear. Danielle Pletka is vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons-international.org.
