The national conventions of the two main parties in the United States are over; setting the stage for the penultimate phase in the presidential elections before voters head to the polls in November. The outcome of the two national conventions confirmed what the world had known for weeks now; eccentric billionaire Donald Trump has been chosen as the Republican Party (GOP) presidential nominee while former Secretary of State, former Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton is now the Democratic Party’s choice to contest the elections as the first woman in US history to come close to winning the White House.
The two candidates are head-to-head in most national polls with Trump edging her by few points in some, but it is too early to predict who will come ahead in the end. This has been an extraordinary election process with both candidates scoring record disapproval ratings by voters; Trump being seen as dangerous, feckless and racist and Clinton viewed as untrustworthy and dishonest. But the American voters have no other realistic choice at this stage.
Trump’s hijacking of the party that represents conservative voters was breathtaking. He had ousted veteran governors, senators and other competitors in the primaries by appealing to largely white blue collar, less educated, mostly male, voters who are frustrated with mainstream Washington politics. They fear for their jobs and they are weary of immigrants. They want Trump to bring back the prosperous America of their youth. Trump promised to build a wall, ban Muslims, renegotiate free trade agreements, defeat Daesh and overturn the Iran nuclear deal. Most of these positions are in conflict with the traditional values of the GOP. Still he was able to sway first-time voters and appeal to right-wing conservative politicians.
Clinton, on the other hand, has been forced to lean to the left by a tenacious opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who managed to inspire young Americans by underlining social and economic injustices in the US today and presenting a socialist vision for America. Clinton presents herself as a steady and cool-headed leader who will fight for social issues, minorities and confront the super-rich while maintaining America’s leadership in world affairs.
But now that less than 100 days separate us from the general election it is worth considering which of the two candidates will be better for Arabs, the Middle East and the region as a whole. Conventional wisdom will favor Hillary who has more experience and knowledge of this region than an impetuous and superficial Trump. But the contrast is not that clear. Clinton has been accused by her critics of gross foreign policy failures in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Palestine/Israel issues. They believe that just like President Barack Obama, she will also lead from behind and present more of the same last eight years of American hesitation and flip-flop approach to regional crises. It is fair to say that the so-called Obama Doctrine, with regard to dealing with the region, has tested relations between Washington and its Arab allies, especially in the Arabian Gulf. Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is dismal when it comes to confronting regional challenges.
Clinton has promised to deal with Daesh and adopt a new strategy on Syria aimed at removing President Assad. But it is almost certain that she will continue with Obama’s cautious approach to handling Daesh; leading an international coalition that relies on local groups while avoiding committing large US troops on the ground. On Syria it is difficult to see how Clinton will challenge Russia’s leadership role there. And on Iran it is unlikely that she will risk derailing the nuclear agreement or upset Tehran’s growing influence in Iraq and Syria.
Clinton will probably attempt to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but again her track record shows that she did little to salvage the peace process and the two-state solution. Her blind support of Israel is unshakeable.
Trump, on the other hand, is unpredictable. He is an unknown entity when it comes to foreign affairs. His impulsive reactions to challenges, personal and otherwise, will have to be reined in by advisers and close aides. He said he will “dismantle” the “bad” Iran deal, but again it is not clear how he will do that without suffering consequences. Earlier on he suggested that he was neutral on the Israel/Palestine conflict only to present himself as the best friend of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
He might pivot toward Russia on Syria and others more than Obama, thus straining relations with regional allies even further. His proposed Muslim ban, plan to defeat Daesh and dealing with Gulf states will prove problematic.
In the end neither candidate will bring solutions or fresh ideas to end the endemic conflicts in this region. Trump had accused Obama and Hillary of leaving the Middle East in a mess. He might be right on this point, but he should also know that America’s policy in the Middle East has never been balanced or fair and the trail of disappointments goes a long way back.
The two candidates are head-to-head in most national polls with Trump edging her by few points in some, but it is too early to predict who will come ahead in the end. This has been an extraordinary election process with both candidates scoring record disapproval ratings by voters; Trump being seen as dangerous, feckless and racist and Clinton viewed as untrustworthy and dishonest. But the American voters have no other realistic choice at this stage.
Trump’s hijacking of the party that represents conservative voters was breathtaking. He had ousted veteran governors, senators and other competitors in the primaries by appealing to largely white blue collar, less educated, mostly male, voters who are frustrated with mainstream Washington politics. They fear for their jobs and they are weary of immigrants. They want Trump to bring back the prosperous America of their youth. Trump promised to build a wall, ban Muslims, renegotiate free trade agreements, defeat Daesh and overturn the Iran nuclear deal. Most of these positions are in conflict with the traditional values of the GOP. Still he was able to sway first-time voters and appeal to right-wing conservative politicians.
Clinton, on the other hand, has been forced to lean to the left by a tenacious opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who managed to inspire young Americans by underlining social and economic injustices in the US today and presenting a socialist vision for America. Clinton presents herself as a steady and cool-headed leader who will fight for social issues, minorities and confront the super-rich while maintaining America’s leadership in world affairs.
But now that less than 100 days separate us from the general election it is worth considering which of the two candidates will be better for Arabs, the Middle East and the region as a whole. Conventional wisdom will favor Hillary who has more experience and knowledge of this region than an impetuous and superficial Trump. But the contrast is not that clear. Clinton has been accused by her critics of gross foreign policy failures in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Palestine/Israel issues. They believe that just like President Barack Obama, she will also lead from behind and present more of the same last eight years of American hesitation and flip-flop approach to regional crises. It is fair to say that the so-called Obama Doctrine, with regard to dealing with the region, has tested relations between Washington and its Arab allies, especially in the Arabian Gulf. Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is dismal when it comes to confronting regional challenges.
Clinton has promised to deal with Daesh and adopt a new strategy on Syria aimed at removing President Assad. But it is almost certain that she will continue with Obama’s cautious approach to handling Daesh; leading an international coalition that relies on local groups while avoiding committing large US troops on the ground. On Syria it is difficult to see how Clinton will challenge Russia’s leadership role there. And on Iran it is unlikely that she will risk derailing the nuclear agreement or upset Tehran’s growing influence in Iraq and Syria.
Clinton will probably attempt to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but again her track record shows that she did little to salvage the peace process and the two-state solution. Her blind support of Israel is unshakeable.
Trump, on the other hand, is unpredictable. He is an unknown entity when it comes to foreign affairs. His impulsive reactions to challenges, personal and otherwise, will have to be reined in by advisers and close aides. He said he will “dismantle” the “bad” Iran deal, but again it is not clear how he will do that without suffering consequences. Earlier on he suggested that he was neutral on the Israel/Palestine conflict only to present himself as the best friend of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
He might pivot toward Russia on Syria and others more than Obama, thus straining relations with regional allies even further. His proposed Muslim ban, plan to defeat Daesh and dealing with Gulf states will prove problematic.
In the end neither candidate will bring solutions or fresh ideas to end the endemic conflicts in this region. Trump had accused Obama and Hillary of leaving the Middle East in a mess. He might be right on this point, but he should also know that America’s policy in the Middle East has never been balanced or fair and the trail of disappointments goes a long way back.
