I hasten to interject that this is not yet another Middle Eastern Bash the USA article. There seems to be an unfortunate Middle East consensus across a broad spectrum of opinion that the US is malevolent - ranging from Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan to Rami Khouri in Beirut, to the pages of Al Ahram in Cairo, all of whom, along with Professors Walt and Mearsheimer and former President Jimmy Carter, tell us that the United States is prisoner to the Zionist lobby, and on to Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post and many other right wing Zionists who insist the U.S. is about to sell out Israel and is in the grip of the Arab lobby. With Yair Lapid, I believe that the US has its heart in the right place, it is fundamentally right, even if it makes many mistakes. However, having your heart in the right place is not always enough. "He meant well" can be a very sad epitaph.

It seems from the material at their Web sites that the candidates in the recent Iowa caucuses were not running on their foreign policy platforms and were not chosen because of them. This seems certainly true of Mike Huckabee and Barak Obama. Foreign policy takes up a tiny part of their campaign rhetoric, which concentrates instead on social issues, abortion, taxes, medical care, immigration and the other trivia of domestic politics. Most of the candidates do not seem to have a coherent vision of the world outside the United States other than specific issues such as the war in Iraq, terrorism, Iranian nuclear development, and in a few cases, the Israeli-Arab conflict and specific issues such as Cuba.

For example, Lebanon does not seem to exist at all on the public political globe of the United States. Lebanese should not feel too insulted, because Russia and European countries don't seem to be there either for most candidates. This may not be due to actual ignorance, but rather, it may reflect what candidates and their advisers believe that their voters consider to be important.

The major exception to the above impression is Hillary Clinton, who presents us with a competent and professional overview of US foreign Policy in an address before the Council on Foreign relations, and likewise in a recent Foreign Affairs article. To be sure, there are some question marks raised by her stands, and there are not enough specifics. She wants to fight Al-Qaeda everywhere, but doesn't explain how America will fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq after withdrawing from that country. Her Foreign Affairs article has this acute observation

Avoid false choices driven by ideology. The Bush administration has presented the American people with a series of false choices: force versus diplomacy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, hard power versus soft. Seeing these choices as mutually exclusive reflects an ideologically blinkered vision of the world that denies the United States the tools and the flexibility it needs to lead and succeed. There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed, the two can reinforce each other. U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.

That is sound advice, except that everyone's choices are driven by their ideological views of the world, and everyone's ideology somehow seems to dictate a single type of solution. The only tool Republicans seem to have is the US armed forces, and the only solution suggested is "blow 'em up." The only tool the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, seem to have is the diplomatic corps, and the only solution is negotiations and alliances.

Overall, by comparison with others, Hillary Clinton gives the impression that she is "the foreign policy candidate." In her Web site summary, however, she chooses to ignore geopolitical realities and focus on platitudes and nostrums. She tells us, as do other Democratic candidates, that America has to form alliances and must negotiate even with enemies. Democrats have all hit hard at this failure of the Bush administration, but for the most part they don't tell us who the allies should be, what the goals of the alliances ought to be, or what the negotiating positions should be with various enemy states, or what would induce hostile states to adopt positions favorable to the USA. Being for democracy and human rights and education is fine. Everyone supports all the good things surely. The question is how to get them. Hillary is specific and aggressive on at least one point:

Hillary has put forth an aggressive plan to support public schools in developing countries in an effort to achieve universal primary education for the 77 million children around the world who aren't in school because they are too poor.

We should not belittle the value of education, but it cannot be the only substantive policy point in a foreign policy presentation, unless it is a presentation to the PTA. On the basis of her CFR speech and her Foreign Affairs magazine article, we can assume that Hillary knows better than that, but apparently her advisers and campaign people understand the importance of not overestimating the intelligence of the public.

All the major U.S. candidates are against terrorism. Don't laugh. In a free election in the Middle East, that unanimity could not be taken for granted, and that stance would not necessarily be popular. In Iran or the Palestinian territories, it would not be a viable political stance. However, most of the candidates seem to be unaware of how woefully unprepared the United States is to fight terrorism, or what has to be done to correct the problem. Nobody gets into the problem of where all the billions went in Iraq, or why US forces never seem to be able to prevent terror attacks there.

All the major Democratic candidates promise to withdraw from Iraq no matter what, and all the Republican candidates promise that US troops will stay in Iraq no matter what and fight to victory. They must all be intelligent enough to realize that arising contingencies may force them to pursue different policies, but in a democracy, you need to tell the people what you think they want to hear in order to win elections.

All the major Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, seem blessedly ignorant of the relation between economic well being and foreign policy clout. All over the world, American prestige is sinking not only because of policy errors, but because of the precipitous fall in the value of the dollar and obvious economic problems experienced by the United States. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani seem to have grasped the problem to some extent, though it is not clear that their solution is realistic. Mike Huckabee also understands the competitiveness problem. He seems to believe that abolishing the income tax will solve it. None of the candidates has overestimated the intelligence and knowledge of their audiences. Romney, for example, tells us, "There are a lot of Asians." Now I bet you didn't know that, did you?

I was unable to find out if any of these candidates have a plan for solving the knotty problem of Israeli-Arab peace. John Edwards, who has a relatively broad discussion of foreign policy, doesn't seem to be aware there is an Israeli-Arab conflict. He does have some good ideas like improving US Humint capabilities, but seems to offer too little. The farthest any of the others will go in discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict is to boldly proclaim that they will encourage negotiations. They must've all concluded that anything they are liable to say beyond that is going to lose votes. Either that, or they really have no idea what to do or what stands to take on the issues.

Hillary Clinton apparently gives the most "information" about her position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not surprisingly, much of it is familiar to most of us from a certain previous administration. In her Foreign Affairs magazine article, Hillary Clinton declares:

Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

Actually, comparison of Israeli and Palestinian casualty rates prior to beginning of the US-sponsored peace process at the U.S. sponsored Madrid conference and since then would appear to indicate the opposite. Thousands of Israelis and Palestinian Arabs have died or been seriously wounded as the result of a "process" that was started on the initiative of the United States. An extremist Hamas government is installed in Gaza as the direct result of US interference. Yet the U.S. has been unable to do much to stop the violence and bring about a stable and reasonable situation. Hillary believes that the solution is the same as the one worked out by Clinton the First in 2000. That may be so, but the problem, Hillary, is that nobody seems to know just how to attain that solution. Hillary also doesn't explain how or why getting out of Iraq and leaving a mess there is going to put the United States in a strong position to mediate Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Barack Obama tells us:

Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.

. What if the instability of Iraq is partly due to the fact that Syria and Iran have no interest in the security of Iraq or the success of American efforts there? What if Obama launches this big effort and it fails, then what?

About the Israeli Palestinian conflict Obama tells us:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

Previous administrations have "made progress" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that progress has not necessarily been in the right direction. If we have much more progress, we may all be dead. Obama doesn't tell us how he's going to succeed where Bill Clinton and George Bush got it wrong. He doesn't tell us what he proposes to do about Jerusalem, about the refugee problem or the other issues. He doesn't seem to know they are issues. He knows about at least one issue. He wants a Jewish state in Israel. He doesn't seem to know that Palestinian leaders have rejected the idea of a Jewish state in Israel, and that might just cause some problems.

Governor Huckabee has a whole page about Israel. He tells us the U.S. has to be committed to Israel, but doesn't elaborate on how that commitment might be expressed or balanced against commitments to other countries. He doesn't mention the peace process.

All the candidates seem to understand the importance of energy independence for American foreign policy, and at least mention the issue. Governor Huckabee makes the boldest promise of all: He is going to achieve energy independence for America by the end of his second term as President! This may seem impossible to ye of little faith. But remember that Governor Huckabee is a man of faith, and faith can move mountains. He is going to spend a lot of money to achieve energy independence. The source of this money is not clear, since Governor Huckabee wants to abolish the income tax. The Lord will provide.

Governor Huckabee may show more insight than many other candidates about what is wrong with the Bush administration Middle East policy:

Right after September 11, with wounds fresh and emotions running high, President Bush declared that all other countries were either for us or they were for the terrorists. Such a black-and-white stance doesn't work in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where there are more shades of gray than you'll find at Sherwin-Williams.

The soundest foreign policy statement of any of the candidates is just horse sense. In just about a year, one of these people is going to be running the United States, and effectively, the world. Scary, isn't it?

Ami Isseroff