Election in the US and Intervention in the Middle East and Its Surroundings

The panorama of the presidential election in the U.S. seems to be throwing a circumstantial millpond over the raging sea of the Middle East and its surroundings. It’s an electoral outlook that seems to be, according to all estimates, very closed. The Obama administration acknowledges that, while it is true that foreign policy traditionally has little influence on election results, in this particular case (with a minimal advantage in the polls, or what is called a “technical tie”), any unexpected event in that zone can alter voters’ preference at the last minute. That is why they are trying to “appease” the panorama (the same one that they had ensured to heat up).

With regard to Iran, they apparently managed to stop the aspirations of Israel’s far right wing, which was determined to attack Iran’s nuclear research facilities, leaving the military escalation that they were willing to undertake in a sort of limbo for the time being. Nevertheless, all the economic measures whose aim is to disrupt the Persian economy are still in place. Either way, Obama’s latest declarations about Iran have been quite moderate (which the Republicans used as yet another argument against him).

The White House keeps on trying to get unstuck in Afghanistan, where there continue to be many deaths and injuries among the multinational occupation forces (and of course among the civilian population), the result of resistance not only from the Taliban, but also many other national Afghan groups that are fighting against foreign occupation. Obama’s government has already repatriated 30,000 soldiers who had been deployed during the last term; it is rushing plans to repatriate even more. Even NATO is in sync, with the governments of several countries who make up the coalition (Spain, France, etc.) intent on reducing their number of occupation troops quickly and substantially. They are trying to persuade other members or allied countries (Denmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) to send in their own troops to substitute the ones that will be withdrawn. The aim of these measures is to enact a phased withdrawal and prevent the “Vietnam Effect.” Hamid Karzai’s regime (imposed after the military occupancy) wouldn’t endure without the presence of occupation troops; a political takeover by the Taliban would be very probable.

In line with this policy of “not rocking the boat,” the U.S. government has likewise avoided any direct intervention in Libya after the ambassador and other diplomatic personnel were killed due in the midst of protests against a film that insulted Islam. The decision not to intervene markedly lowered the country’s profile and discouraged Congress’ far right wing, which asked for military action to be taken.

The only place where military actions are still intense is in Syria, where, in spite of Turkey’s efforts — bombing Syrian territory from the border and promoting a law that would allow them to start a war against their neighbor and make all kind of threats — it has failed to put itself at the forefront of a military intervention.

In the first place, because of its own internal conflicts, going to war could allow the Kurd guerrillas to achieve new military triumphs on domestic territory. What is more, there is a lot of opposition from the political forces opposing the Turkish prime minister’s party — and according to a survey, 60 percent of the population is against Turkish participation in the conflict. NATO seems equally unwilling to get involved militarily (according to its treaties), in a conflict of this magnitude. The coup de grace seems to have been a meeting between Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, who have pledged to jointly promote a ceasefire in Syria.

In spite of everything, the military actions continue, leaving a tragic number of innocent civilians both injured and dead, as the “rebels,” funded and armed by the occidental countries and their allies in the region, persist in their attacks and military actions, while the Syrian army responds with fire and sword. Even so, the international press has just reviewed that the American intelligence has informed the White House that (despite what the corporate media reports daily), Bashar Assad’s government is militarily defeating the rebels, which could lead to an improvement in the situation.

Ultimately, what the election in the U.S. is clearly showing is not only something already known, such as the tremendous level of American interference in other nations, but also the difficulties that it’s encountering trying to maintain that position. We are no longer in a post-Cold War scenario, where the imposition of American presence, the aim of which was to turn the world into a unipolar system, seemed inevitable. The crisis is already there, and it’s here to stay and rule; the progressive loss of power is beginning to show, just like the surge of new poles in a world that is tending toward multipolarity.

Meanwhile, the Americans face an election that presents them with two alternatives who aren’t much different in the basics, although they might seem to disagree on their ways. If the Republicans win, with Mitt Romney as president and Paul Ryan from the far right as vice president, we will be back to George W. Bush’s discourse of right-wing brutality (I announce and carry out the barbarism). If Obama wins, we will continue to hear apparently liberal rhetoric, from a man with a more moderate image (that of being a progressive “good guy”), who will nonetheless keep up his efforts to impose the imperial needs of his nation worldwide at any cost.

Since we don’t see what reasons he could have, if re-elected, to change his current foreign policy — one that is in favor of aggression, intervention and imperial control — we don’t really believe in a more moderate and accessible Barack Obama, regardless of how much many of us wish he were that way.