Pollsters and pundits are far from the only ones trying to guess the outcome of the coming US election. Thousands of miles away, participants in the Middle East’s deadly political game are tailoring their moves in anticipation of the results.
Iran’s rulers appear to have concluded that President Obama will win a second term, in which he’ll adopt a more flexible stand on their nuclear program.
Yesterday, Ramin Mehmanparast, the Foreign Ministry spokesman in Tehran, declared that efforts are already under way to arrange another set of talks on the nuclear issue. The Iranian side would be led by Saeed Jalili, the secretary of the High Council of National Security.
At the same time the daily Resalat, reflecting the views of “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei, claimed that Iran will agree to direct talks with the US with certain preconditions — chief among them, US reaffirmation of the Algiers Accords (signed by the United States during Jimmy Carter’s presidency), implicitly acknowledging Iran’s position as a key player in the region. The paper notes that “such leading Democrats as Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Bzrezinski favor the recognition of Iran’s power.”
Tehran’s assumption is that, freed of electoral concerns, Obama will lead US foreign policy away from confrontation and toward accommodation.
Yet two of Iran’s allies, Syria and Russia, seem to worry that Mitt Romney might win.
The Damascus daily Tishrin, reflecting the view of the ruling Ba’ath Party, claims that the Syrian regime must try to crush the opposition by force before coming “changes in the international situation,” including the emergence of a harder line in Washington. To make maximum use of what they believe could be Obama’s final weeks in power, Syrian leaders have ordered a massive campaign of air strikes against several major cities, including Damascus and Aleppo.
Obama has resolutely opposed the setting up of no-fly zones to prevent Assad from using his air-power monopoly to compensate for his loss of control on the ground. Romney has made no specific promise on Syrian no-fly zones, like the ones America set up in Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from massacring the Kurds. But some Romney foreign-policy advisers are on the record in favor of such an option to protect civilians in Syria.
A hint of Russia’s fear of a Romney victory came last week from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who predicted a hardening of the US position on the creation of a missile shield in Central Europe. Obama has put the project on ice; Russia insists it be totally scrapped.
Interfax news agency quoted Lavrov as saying that Russia would work with the new US administration, whoever wins on Tuesday: “There are many examples in the history where pre-election rhetoric went off the scale, but only when the winner . . . has to deal with concrete matters, one can judge the real intentions of any particular administration.”
Judging by media reports and comments by local politicians, the oil-rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia, favor an Obama victory. One reason is that they know little about Romney, who’s made no attempt at opening channels of communication with them. But Romney has a card to play in this context: He has strong support from former President George H.W. Bush, who has excellent contacts in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
On balance, the Israelis appear to favor a Romney victory, persuaded that Obama is influenced by traditional “Third Worldist” attitudes vis-à-vis the Jewish state.
The new “Arab Spring” regimes are divided, with regard to the effects of the US election on their future ties with Washington. Under Obama the US had forged a tactical alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood that has won a big role in the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. Still wedded to a Third Worldist discourse, Algeria also favors Obama — while Morocco and Libya clearly prefer Romney.
Afghans and Iraqis tell me that they would prefer almost anyone to Obama. “Obama wrecked our relations with the United States,” a senior Iraqi politician tells me on condition of anonymity.
All in all, Obama has managed to reduce the importance of US leadership in the Middle East. In some cases, his “leading from behind” strategy has rendered the American factor almost irrelevant in regional political calculations.
The last word must go to Lebanon’s most popular television fortune-teller: “Within the next few days we could expect major changes,” she told her captive audiences the other day.