Mideast vacuum in campaign

The US presidential election is in full-throttle and the Middle East, save for Iraq, has been avoided as much as possible. The radioactive issue of Arab-Israeli peace received a perfunctory, or worse sanctimonious, treatment.

It is a no-brainer to figure it out: Arab-Israeli conflict is a no-winner in American politics. If you do too much peace processing you are bound to step on big toes, if you do too little you would be blamed for letting things run amuck.

So best be laconic about the Middle East if you are running for election, especially, for the highest office.

It is rather peculiar for Barack Obama. His narrative would suggest otherwise. The man is on the left and he is no bien pensant (orthodox thinker).

The Middle East, election's rhetoric notwithstanding, should've figured prominently in his campaign.

After all, Obama, unbeknownst to his detractors, owns, not one, but two Arabic-driven names: Barack from Arabic baraka (meaning "blessing"), and the now pejoratively used "Hussain".

For a raconteur, and a seamless one at that, the Middle East is part and parcel of his triple heritage (African, Islamic and Western) to use the greatest Kenyan intellectual's words, Ali Mazrui.

The explanation might be a deliberate avoidance of the Jesse Jackson and the Jewish community rancour in the 1984 presidential election. Erstwhile allies in the civil rights movement, the African-American and the Jewish communities had engaged in jaundiced recriminations.

While African-Americans were chanting enthusiastically "run Jesse, run!" a group called "Jews against Jackson" were mordantly calling "ruin Jesse, ruin!"

A quarter of a century later, both sides simply were not interested in a rerun. Apparently, over 70 per cent of Jewish voters support Obama, which is historically about the average support for other Democratic candidates. The rub is that it might set the tone for an Obama Middle East foreign policy.

McCain, a long shot

McCain, on the other hand, now a long shot, would hardly pursue Bush's policy, despite what his opponent is saying. How could one continue a policy that is a wreck!

It is true McCain suffers from political sclerosis and pallin' with Palin did not help him much. A McCain Mideast policy would most probably look more like Bush the father than the son - it will take the peace process to nowhere.

On Iraq, both would seek a negotiated Status of Forces agreement, i.e., an honourable disengagement with a qualified footprint in that hapless country.

Both would have to engage Iran at some level if the Iraq strategy is to succeed, or if the nuclear issue to be resolved peacefully. The last thing the US could afford is another military showdown in the Gulf.

Even on the War on Terrorism, there will be no palpable difference. They are both gung-ho on the issue and would not relent; and both have learnt the Nietzchean dictum: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

So what are the differences, if any, between Obama and McCain on the Middle East? Expect Obama to pay homage to the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Rumours are already spreading on prospective appointment of the once-revered general Colin Powell as a special envoy. But do not expect an Obama Administration to pressure Israelis to concede more than they are willing, anyway.

The real difference probably would be in rhetoric and style. Where one would hear tough talk from McCain, Obama would engage the world.

In fact, Obama is possibly the only one capable and willing to heal the rift between the US and the world, and the Middle East in particular.

In a very revealing moment during the primary debate back in January, Obama admonished: "I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place." Nevertheless, both Obama and McCain have to guard against the demons that have beset US foreign policy.

Dr Albadr S.S. Alshateri is a UAE political analyst and writer.