The 2016 American presidential race is fast approaching. A number of prominent politicians, including Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have thrown in their hats, and more are expected to join the race soon. What does this means for American commentators, and world politics? In fact, a good number of political analysts are already airing their views. They are discussing in earnest the polices America’s next president must adopt in a fast changing world.

Some analysts like Ian Bremmer, writing in Time magazine on June 1, argue that this is the first time since the 1945 and 1968 presidential elections that foreign policy is dominating the scene. He adds that United States President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, despite being criticised, is not exceptional. The American public does not accept, in general, reacting to world problems by using brute force — until it’s proven that it is necessary to safeguard American interests.

Meanwhile, politicians are always referring to a doubtful notion: that America is indispensable for world peace. Whenever America has of late used force reluctantly, it has mostly failed, especially when it went in with unclear goals. So the writer suggests that American foreign policy should be designed to fulfil American interests, not export American values. But this will be a clear departure from the norms so far followed by both previous presidents, and the declared polices of future nominees.

Bremmer argues that America should not concern itself with nation-building outside but instead concentrate on rebuilding itself and look at its own interest. Hillary Clinton, describing the political attitude of Russian President Vladimir Putin and how he sees the world in her recent book Hard Choices, remarked that what Moscow fears most is an uprising against central authority, similar to the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. Secondly, Moscow fears the fall of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Clinton added that Russian President Vladimir Putin only understands the language of “power and decisiveness”. But she still argued that America has to increase the number of its friends and reduce its foes. Probably those kind of statements show clearly what we are talking about: that domestic politics dominate or dictate foreign policy.

In the coming years, big powers are going to act only in their national interests.It looks like we are entering a new era. It is not a cold war or an era of idealistic politics. The current mantra seems to be: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” The Big Three — the US, Russia and China — will divide the world into their spheres of influence and all others powers, medium or small, have to come under these three spheres. In this day and age, no big power will go to war against the other, so this division of influence will be based on understanding.

If we look to the so-called medium-sized powers in the region, things are almost the same. Take Turkey, for instance. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s foreign policy is based on what he thinks is in Turkey’s national interest. The stance he took against the Egyptian military springs from his fear that the Turkish military may also adopt a similar policy. He also thinks that Turkey can advance its own interest with ease if there is an Islamist government in Egypt. The same analysis goes for Iran too, which harbours the idea of exporting its revolution to advance its national interests.

And the same goes for the Gulf states and their allies, as the Iranian-backed Al Houthis in Yemen are a threat to their internal security. So they decided to take collective action against Al Houthis.

We are witnessing the fall of ideological politics. Fighting terrorism will be a priority for everybody. This will also be the burden that the next US president will have to carry — however, he or she will no longer be alone. We in the Gulf have to understand the new realities and shape our policies accordingly.

Mohammad AlRumaihi is a professor of political sociology at Kuwait University. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/@rumaihi42