US foreign policy is static

As the date for George W. Bush's departure from the White House nears, many Americans (and non-Americans) are hopeful that things will take a dramatic turn for the better. Whether they end up with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or even John McCain, there is a general feeling that it can only get better now that it's got this bad.

Across all fronts, including Iraq, the war on terror, Iran, the US economy and budget deficit or the ongoing budget crisis, Bush has been responsible for so many bad decisions.

But the question remains, after the easy wins, can the future president of the United States move drastically from Bush's shadows?

Of course, the mere fact of not being Bush is a plus. But to assume that things will start to change right away, particularly when it comes to US foreign policy, is simply naive.

Take Iraq for example. McCain and the Democrats have said that some troops must stay to finish the job. The difference is, while McCain doesn't mind if it lasts a hundred years, Clinton and Obama have promised to start withdrawing some troops early next year.

What's happening is that all the candidates refuse to commit to a solid plan and risk seeing it fail. Things are even more vague when it comes to the US's other war in Afghanistan. That the two wars have and will continue to cost money and greatly harm US credibility is unquestionable.

Iran is equally a major cause of concern. Most of Bush's threats target Tehran and the more he threatens, the more popular his nemesis Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad becomes.

The attitude towards the Islamic Republic is simply telling of the fact that the White House has learned nothing from its previous mistakes.

Fatigue

There is definitely a Middle East fatigue in US domestic politics, which is also seen in the current administration's approach towards Palestine. It is only now that Bush and company are scrambling (quite reminiscent of Clinton's last year) to try to leave behind some form of legacy concerning the peace process.

During his presidency, Bush never really exerted pressure on Israel. Moreover, very little high-level US attention was granted to the on-going conflict.

Even though nothing ever changes dramatically in US politics towards the Middle East, we can nonetheless expect a graded change over time. What we witnessed during Bush's time in office is a consistency in overdoing the US's hard power and this will definitely have an impact on the next presidency.

It is safe to say that hard power will continue to retract due to that fatigue. As for soft power, the US continues to enjoy a strong element of external attractiveness although more people are dissatisfied with its hegemonic attitude.

But the new president of 2009 will only in some degree alter existing policies. Washington will continue to have a strong desire to run the global show. And we should not expect much change even if a Democrat makes it to the White House.

Finally, it is indisputable that the US's dominance over the world will lessen one day. Whether another power will emerge in the foreseeable future that can take on it is less clear.

As for the new president, he/she should be aware that the honeymoon period will be very short for there are far too many expectations and demands to be met; yesterday before today - let alone in January 2009.

Winston Churchill once famously noted, "We have no lasting friends, no lasting enemies, only lasting interests." This could not have applied more accurately on the way the US carries out its policies today. What's surprising though is how often Americans and non-Americans are surprised by this attitude.