WASHINGTON: A presidential campaign focused largely on domestic economic issues veered into foreign policy after the killing of America's ambassador to Libya on Tuesday and the eruption of anti-US protests from Egypt to Yemen. Both presidential candidates responded — and their differences have produced debates over which would be stronger on the world stage. Was President Obama forceful enough? Did Mitt Romney "shoot first and aim later," as Obama alleged, when the Republican criticised the administration's response?

And what do these differences tell us about who can best guide US policy in the Middle East, a region we seem unable to fix and unable to leave?

As much as we might want to parse this moment for insights on Oval Office decision-making, it actually reveals very little.

Because no matter who wins in November, the basic parameters of the US approach to the Middle East are unlikely to change.

We may get pulled into situations with unpredictable consequences (including a conflict with Iran), but the days of sweeping and grand US-led designs for war and peace are pretty much over.

The biggest enforcer of the status quo may be Obama himself. Early on, he talked a great deal about a different American approach, calling for a freeze of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and proposing a new relationship between the United States and the Muslim world in a June 2009 speech in Cairo. But he then proceeded to become what he probably was all along — a very practical transactor who in many ways resembles George W. Bush: tough on terrorism, "surging" in Afghanistan, and in the end unwilling and unable to push the Israelis on the peace process or the authoritarian oil sheiks on reform.

If you're looking for dramatic, creative moves from a second Obama term or a Romney administration — big peace plans, grand bargains and the like — forget about it. Your odds are better in Vegas.

Here's why.

Yes, news flash, Obama's relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is tense. But the overall US-Israeli bond is strong and will only grow stronger — and that would be even more certain should Romney win the presidency.

The relationship has transcended Democratic and Republican politics. The confluence of shared values, a powerful pro-Israeli community in the United States, support for or acquiescence in the special relationship among the broader non-Jewish and non-evangelical American public, and institutionalised strategic cooperation with the Israelis produces a bond that is hard to tear asunder.

That doesn't mean that there can't or won't be tension, for instance on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But it does mean that on the larger issues of peace and war, American presidents will have no choice but to win Israel's approval. And while Washington may seek to exert pressure at times, the main instruments will be suasion and coaxing the Israelis with all kinds of goodies and benefits.

Other parties in these matters — say, the Palestinians — don't have anywhere near the same leverage and influence. It's been that way for the better part of 40 years, and there's no indication that much will change.

It's laughable to hear Romney's charges that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. Indeed, a president who has spent his first term bent on ending two wars may become involved in another against Iran in a second term, demonstrating yet again how Washington has made Israel's agenda its own. Clearly the United States has a big stake in making sure that Iran doesn't get nukes.

But there simply wouldn't be the urgency and panic without Israel seeming to signal once a day and twice on Sundays that it will use military force to deal with Iran.

There’s no possible US-Israeli divorce anymore — just an enduring relationship that is by turns happy and troubled.

Iranian threats ensure that the US-Israel bond will remain tight. Israel and America don't see eye to eye on the timing of a military strike against Iran, or even the need for one. But it won't matter if Israel hits Iran and it retaliate by striking directly at Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. There's a good chance, too, that whoever the president is and whatever his personal views, Washington won't only support Israel — it may even be drawn into the fight.

The Iranian challenge also deepens America's commitment to the gulf states. This is particularly true when it comes to the Saudis, who fear a Sunni-Shia confrontation in Iraq and look warily upon Iranian efforts to influence Shias in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Washington will be reluctant to push the Saudis too hard on democratic reforms, to avoid provoking anger and instability in a key oil producer. And because international oil sanctions against Iran are reducing production there, the United States is growing even more more dependent on Saudi crude.

The Iran issue is likely to suck up all the oxygen in the room for some time to come. It makes moving on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — already tough — even harder. Netanyahu isn't going to make big decisions on peace when the Iranian nuclear file is still open. And if the Iran issue becomes a military crisis, one can of course forget any progress on the peace process, too.

The obligatory disclaimer in all such discussions is that no one should underestimate the ability of an unpredictable Middle East to draw America in, force its hand and produce unexpected and dramatic turnarounds in US policies. And if Obama is re-elected, the allure of legacy-polishing might lead him into a search for an Israeli-Palestinian deal, particularly if he's bogged down by Congress on domestic issues.

Come 2013, Obama or Romney is going to be knee-deep in trying to keep Americans from plunging headlong over the looming fiscal cliff and trying to save what's left of the American middle class. Neither wants to be the hero of Damascus; they'll be trying to be the hero of Detroit, Kansas City, Atlanta and Los Angeles.

Big moves in Mideast foreign policy — three Arab-Israeli disengagement agreements in the two years after the 1973 war; negotiating an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979; waging a short and successful war to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991 — are not only rare but take a combination of opportunity, will, skill and guts, as well as real leadership in the region.

By arrangement with the Washington Post/Bloomberg News Service

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.