With the presidential election looming in the United States, we may soon see a paradox with regard to the Middle East. Though president Barack Obama has largely failed in his regional policy, it has every chance of being replicated, regardless of who wins.
When Mr Obama took office, one of his first priorities was the “pivot to Asia”. As this was understood at the time, he was saying that his administration would pivot away from the Middle East, which, in Mr Obama’s mind, had hijacked far too much of America’s attention since the September 11 attacks in 2001.
Indeed, even after the Arab uprisings broke out in 2011, Mr Obama tried as best he could to stay clear of the region. While the United States did play a reactive role in Egypt and Libya – largely because it had no choice – it refused to get involved in the early, peaceful stages of the Syrian revolt. Mr Obama allowed the situation there to fester, arguing that the United States could not afford to engage in a new war in the region.
Mr Obama’s reasoning was dishonest. In claiming to want to avoid a new war, the president effectively ignored a wide variety of options short of war that could have helped those who had initially demonstrated non-violently against president Bashar Al Assad’s regime, only to be brutally repressed. As the situation worsened, Syria entered into a cycle of violence that allowed extremist groups, in particular ISIL, to thrive.
When ISIL became a regional threat and began killing Americans, among others, Mr Obama could no longer dally. While the president never said he was pivoting back to the Middle East, he found himself in a twilight zone of sorts: he sidestepped his cardinal rule of avoiding a US military return to the region by deploying a limited number of troops in the anti-ISIL campaign. At the same time he continued to avoid any personal engagement with the region.
Mr Obama’s focus on achieving a nuclear deal with Iran did perhaps irreparable damage to Washington’s relations with the Gulf states. Mr Obama’s abandonment of president Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, like his backing for the presidency of Mohammad Morsi, alienated the regime of Abdel Fattah El Sisi, who took power in 2013.
The net result is that America’s relationships with its traditional Arab allies are today in a shambles. Perhaps Mr Obama doesn’t believe the Arab world merits as much of Washington’s time as in the past. The bottom line is that the US has disengaged politically from the region, even as its forces continue to be present on the ground and the risks involved in ignoring the Middle East entirely are increasingly recognised.
This policy has been ambiguous, confusing to US allies and at odds with American behaviour in the past, when Washington sought to reinforce its political and military primacy in the region at the expense of all others, in particular the Soviet Union. Many weaned on that era would be surprised to see the extent to which Mr Obama is willing to concede to Russia a major regional role today.
Whoever wins the 2016 US presidential election is unlikely to reverse Mr Obama’s approach. The reason is that the president has found an equilibrium between the prevailing impulses in his own society. Americans today want less involvement in the Middle East, but they also want to be safe from terrorism, which may impose some US military action in the region.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton has talked much about the Middle East in the presidential campaign. However, it is difficult for a US president to radically change the policies of a predecessor without causing an upheaval. That Mr Obama broke sharply with George W Bush’s approach is a reason why the Middle East is so unstable, as states have had to scramble to adapt to a new reality.
But whether it works or not, this new reality probably won’t, suddenly, be altered yet again, particularly by two candidates who will want to avoid the Middle Eastern minefield in their first months in office. Even the Iran deal, which Mr Trump has criticised on the campaign trail, could remain in place if he becomes president. Experts predict that Congress will not want to take responsibility for overturning such a key accord.
If Mrs Clinton wins, there may be a return to behaviour more akin to the past, where time was given to Middle Eastern allies. However, she is too aware of American uneasiness towards the region to willingly make it a centrepiece of her foreign policy. A divisive figure in her own right, Mrs Clinton will be careful not to squander her political capital on a region that remains deeply polarising.
Candidates are risk-averse when taking office, and the Middle East invites caution. Don’t expect major changes ahead, whether from Mr Trump or Mrs Clinton.
Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut
On Twitter: @BeirutCalling
