Obama - Romney |
President
Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney met on stage on
Monday night, October 22, 2012, for their foreign policy debate. The headline
was clear: continuity and consensus on the fundamentals of US policy.
Neither candidate charted a grand new course for US policy.
Neither declared he would attack Iranian nuclear sites or push for peace on the
Palestinian track. Rather, both appealed to the consensus in US public opinion that has led to a reluctance to
use force and to a slow disengagement from the Middle
East . And come January 2013, Israel will have a friend in the White House, one
who is willing to “stand with” America ’s “greatest ally in the
region.”
Still, to the
extent the debate reflects the candidates’ actual visions, this is a different
United States from the
Clinton or George W. Bush eras: this United
States will continue to give Israel strong
diplomatic and financial support, and will even enhance military and
intelligence cooperation. On issues of war and peace, though, the vision may be
for Israel to sort out its
travails on its own, with the United States “standing with”
it.
The Clinton
and Bush eras saw a different United
States , one that for better or worse pressed forward in the
peace process and was less reluctant to use US troops to shape the Middle East . This United States remained active in the
early years of Obama’s term, famously clashing with Prime Minister Netanyahu on
the peace process. However, the mounting US national
debt, a war-weary American public, and the Arab Spring have brought changes in
tack. The United States did
use force in Libya , but
during the debate neither candidate recommended it for Syria . The two
agreed on the need to withdraw troops from Afghanistan , and
they discussed the Iraq War and its ramifications only in passing. The
Palestinian issue – once a mainstay in US foreign policy discussion – came
up only in passing, mentioned once by Romney and not at all by
Obama.
On
Iran , both sounded a cautious note.
Both supported sanctions, with Romney arguing that they should have come earlier
and been stronger. This demonstrates that there is strong support in the
United States for sanctions
on Iran – perhaps an obvious point, but
one with overlooked importance. Neither candidate renounced a military option,
each calling it “the last resort.” Neither seemed enthusiastic for moderator Bob
Schieffer’s proposal of a common defense pact with Israel (though Israel itself
has not asked for such a pact). The most significant policy difference, as in
the past, was over the point by which Iran must be stopped. Romney repeated
that Iran must not “develop
nuclear capability,” again opposing Iran reaching a point at which it
could break out toward a bomb. Obama said that US policymakers would have timely
enough information should Iran move to break out, hinting at
the reasoning for his opposing an Iranian nuclear “weapon” (and not
“capability”). This is, indeed, a significant distinction in policy, but without
a clear sense of consequences for Iran , it risks being a distinction
without a difference.
In that sense,
Obama and Romney, on Iran as on other issues, appealed to
undecided centrist voters in a tired, war-weary nation. That said, if the
substantive differences were not great, the two tried to distinguish themselves
on style. Romney has criticized Obama for projecting weakness, last night
repeating his charge that Obama had embarked on an “apology tour” of the
Middle East . Romney also reiterated his calls
for increases in the defense budget, including buffing up the
US navy. Obama rejected the “apology
tour” charge, calling it “probably the biggest whopper” of the campaign. He also
chided Romney for lacking knowledge of the military’s real needs, likening the
building of more ships to supplying more horses and bayonets made useless by
technological advance. Romney tried to draw distinctions between strength and
weakness; Obama tried to distinguish between thoughtfulness and impulsiveness.
The voters will decide.
The
United States seems to have
lost its energy and vigor for the Middle East
and to have lost its sense of imagination abroad. The best the candidates could
muster was Romney’s pledge – again with implicit agreement from Obama – to help
Arab societies implement democracy and free markets through aid and programs to
implement rule of law. The democracy promotion goal was a tenet of
administrations from Kennedy to Bush, while the strategy is that of the European
Union. For that matter, Europe was hardly mentioned at the debate, and other
important regions, including Russia , India , Africa, and Latin
America , garnered only passing references.
As for the
Israeli angle, the United
States will stand by Israel . The core
US-Israel relationship has not been a casualty of the changing mood. Both
candidates proudly touted their allegiance to the “greatest ally in the region,”
proving the relationship’s durability. The relationship has survived the decade
of wars, survived the delegitimization campaigns, survived the anxiety about the
US national debt, and survived the
Arab Spring. Neither candidate wants his reluctance on Iran to come across as an expression of
distancing from Israel . Both felt it important to
stress that they want to manage the US-Israel relationship and that they want
the relationship to continue to succeed.
Nonetheless,
the debate contains a warning for Israeli policymakers. The results of the
presidential election in the United
States and the upcoming elections in Israel are of
course of great significance. A like-minded Israeli government and
US administration may find it easier
to cooperate on issues ranging from the peace process to the Iranian issue to
the regional ramifications of the Arab Spring. That does not, however, exclude
the possibility of cooperation and coordination between a center-right
government in Israel and a second-term Obama
administration. However, that would require a recalibration of foreign policy
priorities and ways and means of attaining objectives. More than that, it would
require rebuilding confidence and trust at the highest levels in the two
countries’ leaderships.
Whichever
candidate wins, the public mood in the United States reflects a formidable
obstacle to intervention. Whether in Syria or Iran or elsewhere, either man likely
will feel political pressure to hold back on using force. The presumption, it
seems, is that the United
States will not use force unless those
proposing it meet a heightened burden of proof. An Israeli government arguing
for military involvement could still win the argument, but it must address the
American public’s concerns. Indeed, in the coming years, this may be a key to
managing the broader US-Israel relationship.
Font: המכון למחקרי ביטחון לאומ
No comments:
Post a Comment