Middle East: McCain vs. Obama

Living in Beirut and then Cairo for 15 of the last 25 years, I've grown to think of the U.S. as another Middle East country. Increasingly, especially since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so do a lot of Middle Easterners.

Certainly policies formulated in Washington have a big impact on the lives of citizens of this region as well as on the lives of Americans in the U.S. Americans began arriving a century or so ago as missionaries and later as engineers in search of petroleum. The post-WW2 Cold War fight against Soviet influence, American support for Israel, the British and French imperial retreat from the region and partnerships between U.S. oil companies and the Gulf states steadily increased America's involvement in Middle Eastern affairs up to the present day.

American voters will doubtless focus on the economy in making their choice between John McCain and Barack Obama in November. Yet, Middle East issues are likely to be debated more intensely than in any other presidential campaign in American history. There are 140,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, now a five-year-plus deployment that is the biggest American military engagement since the Vietnam War. Even domestic economic concerns are related to the Middle East, given how the skyrocketing price of oil is partly the result of continuing security jitters in the Gulf.

Americans have a distinct choice between the approaches to the Middle East problems offered by McCain and Obama. The most obvious one is while McCain has said U.S. troops must remain in Iraq, perhaps for 100 years if necessary, Obama advocates a phased troop withdrawal starting immediately. McCain sees winning in Iraq as essential to strengthening American interests, Obama sees the war as un-winable and and undermining Americans interests. There is also a notable divide between the approaches of McCain and Obama to other problems in the region like Iran. McCain advocates the "stick" approach that dominated Bush's policies in the Middle East, and Obama emphasizes a "carrot" approach consisting of diplomacy and negotiations.

We'll have much to say in the coming months about the presidential candidates and the Middle East. Meanwhile, with the McCain-Obama contest truly underway as of today, check out the recent YouTube foreign policy "debate" (above) that is a taste of what is to come.

Also, look at the excellent series The Road to the White House run by our colleagues at the Jerusalem Post last summer that featured the candidates' views in their own words on some key Middle East issues. Here are some excerpts:

What's the importance of Israel as a strategic ally and how would your administration manage ties between the two countries?

McCain:

I will strengthen America's bedrock commitment to the security of the State of Israel. First and foremost, we must continue to provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology required to retain Israel's qualitative military advantage and to defend itself. Just as important is the strengthening of our diplomatic ties. As President, I will invite Israel to play a leading role in the League of Democracies that I have proposed - an organization of like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace.

Obama:

The special relationship between the United States and Israel requires an open and honest dialogue, and strong personal ties, between our nations' leaders. As President, I would maintain regular communication with the Israeli Prime Minister, and instruct members of my administration to do the same at all levels. I would continue and deepen the strategic dialogue between our nations' defense establishments, insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel to ensure it can defend itself, and expand cooperation on the development of the Arrow and other missile defense systems. Israel's security - which is of vital importance to the United States - can best be guaranteed by reaching negotiated peace agreements with its neighbors. But Israel must have credible partners with whom to negotiate. As President, I would actively involve myself in the effort to strengthen moderate Palestinians and others who can be such partners, and to make such negotiations successful, while working to isolate and weaken those who seek Israel's destruction. But I would never try to dictate to Israel what its security requires. The United States should never try to drag Israel to, or block Israel from, the negotiating table.

How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?

McCain:

Should the Security Council continue to drag its feet, the US must lead a group of like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework... There are many ways to increase pressure on Iran. Financial sanctions have had an initial effect. Iran's need to import refined gasoline, to cite one example, suggests an important vulnerability. And countries such as China and Malaysia, which have signed deals to develop Iranian gas fields, and Russia, which provides weapons systems to Teheran, should know that Iran would be a critical element in American's bilateral relations with each nation... The US should also privatize the sanctions effort by launching a divestment campaign. By persuading individuals, pension funds, and financial institutions to divest from companies doing business with Iran, we can isolate and delegitimize a hostile government...Every option must remain on the table. Military action isn't our preference. It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran. The regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.

Obama:

No President of the United States should take any option, including the military option, off the table. But at this stage, our first line of offense must be a sustained, aggressive, coordinated diplomatic effort to make clear to Iran the costs of its current path.
The current strategy of ignoring Iran and issuing threats through intermediaries has not worked. I would engage Iran in direct, bilateral discussions - much as we negotiated with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. In these discussions, we should make clear to Iran that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will lead to greater isolation, and increased economic pressure. At the same time, we must communicate directly with the Iranian people, who are not as radical as their government, letting them know the opportunities for cooperation that exist if their government ends its current destructive policies. Our diplomatic offensive must include stronger multilateral actions as well. The UN Security Council has sanctioned Iran twice in the past year, but it is time to ratchet up the pressure. We must push Iran's trading partners in Europe and energy suppliers in the Gulf states to use additional economic leverage against Iran, and we must demand that the Russians and Chinese focus on the serious threat to their interests posed by a nuclear Iran. We need to build this pressure over the coming weeks and months, not months and years.

Are you concerned that the unfolding situation in Iraq is harming America's ability to grapple with the Iranian threat?

McCain:

There can be little doubt that failure in Iraq would leave Iran in a far stronger position to exert regional hegemony, pursue its nuclear weapons program and support extremist elements throughout the Middle East. The best course in Iraq is to allow the new strategy to have a chance to succeed under General Petraeus and his team... To date, Iran has not paid a price for its behavior and, unsurprisingly, continues to subvert American efforts to stabilize Iraq and support violent extremists dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Obama:

I have argued for many months that the time has come to begin a phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy to help Iraqis forge political compromises. The redeployment of US troops will enable a more effective use of our resources against other pressing threats that we face. .. The Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has strengthened Iran's strategic position, reduced US credibility and influence in the region, and placed our ally Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril.

Which Assad do you believe? The one who threatens war or the one who says he wants to make peace?

McCain:

The international community must...do more to hold Syria accountable for its past and current actions in Lebanon - including its support for Hizbullah which seeks Israel's destruction... There is one bottom line: to achieve lasting peace, sooner or later, one way or another, Hizbullah must be disarmed and its patron in Damascus confronted. The US and the international community must face Syria from a position of strength and apply real pressure on the Assad regime to change its dangerous behavior in the region.

Obama:

The US and its allies should directly present the Syrian regime with a clear choice: fundamentally alter its policies and enjoy the political and economic benefits of closer integration into the world community or face greater isolation and tougher sanctions... I would engage Syria in direct bilateral talks. We should insist on our core demands: cooperation in stabilizing Iraq; ending support for terrorist groups that threaten Israel; and respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. We should make plain there are two paths ahead: greater engagement, improved political ties and economic cooperation or greater isolation through imposition of the full range of sanctions in the Syria Accountability Act which will make it difficult for companies and financial institutions that do business in Syria to continue to do business in the US... As for peace negotiations with Israel, this is a decision Israel must make based on its own interests and assessment of Syria's intentions.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo