13 November 2016
By Amir Taheri
Hillary Clinton or Donald trump, which one might be better for the Middle
East?
This is the question friends have been asking me for weeks. It is not easy to
answer because it assumes that both candidates are good and that one could be
better than the other. However, what if both candidates are bad in which case
the question is: which one would be worse for the Middle East?
Even then, finding an answer depends on what we think the two might do for
America itself. For if the US is unable to put its own house in order it would
not be able to do much good for anyone else.
In its short history, with few evanescent periods, the US has always managed
to synthesize ethnic, religious, ideological and racial diversity, and forge
national consensus on key issues of domestic and foreign policies. That
consensus no longer exists. In fact, with the exception of the decade spanning
the Civil War, including pre- and post-bellum phases, the US today is more
divided than at any other time.
Though it would be unfair to blame all on him, there is no escaping the fact
that President Barack Obama has been an exceptionally divisive figure. Failing
to find formulae for working with a hostile Congress he has tried to
circumvent the legislature whenever possible, adding fuel to the fire of
division. He leaves behind a deeply divided government.
By turning his power base into a coalition of racial, ethnic and religious
minorities, Obama has pushed the majority towards radical messages they had
shunned for generations. He leaves behind a divided society. Today, even the
two main parties, Democrat and Republican, are split with surprising reversals
of alliances within each. He leaves behind a divided establishment.
With his tergiversations and intellectual laziness, Obama has also divided the
NATO alliance, opening new spaces for opportunist powers of various sizes to
embark on ill-conceived adventures. That brings us to the real question: which
of the two candidates are less likely to deepen those divisions, let alone
heal America's political wounds?
If we go by verbal measures, Donald Trump is certainly the more divisive of
the two if only because of his tongue-lashing of Latinos, Muslims and even
Republican Party grandees. But if action is the measure, Hillary Clinton might
be the more divisive. The reason is that, rightly or wrongly, she is seen as
the continuator of Obama's tenure; many Americans see her presidency as a
third term for the incumbent. Another President Clinton might mean another
four years of internecine feuds in the United States. And that would be bad
for America and bad for the world, including the Middle East.
In contrast, Trump, who, despite the fact that he talks too much, still
remains an unknown quantity and may turn out to be a less divisive figure if
only by allowing the structures of the US government to absorb the shock of
Obama and regain a measure of composure and balance.
When it comes to the Middle East, Trump again has the advantage of being an
unknown quantity. Although he has talked a lot of nonsense about foreign
policy, he has also insisted on a valid point: the current US policy simply
doesn't work. That, in turn, might persuade him to look for something
different, creating at least an opportunity for repairing some of the damage
done by Obama's wayward policies to peace and stability in the Middle East.
Clinton, in contrast, already has a record. She backed the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt before Obama decided to ditch them. She was co-pilot in Obama's
disastrous policy in Libya. On the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict, she did
the hoola dance choreographed by Obama, going round and round and getting
nowhere. Clinton was also in the driving seat when the US launched secret
talks in Oman with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a textbook example of
diplomatic chicanery that led to the great swindle known as ''the Iran Nuclear
deal.''
Trump is accused of flirting with the Russian President Vladimir Putin. But it
was Hillary who offered the neo-Tsar a gadget bearing the message ''re-set''.
It is also clear that she spent part of her time as Secretary of State
fund-raising for the Clinton Foundation, a noble cause perhaps but hardly
relevant to American foreign policy objectives.
So, on balance we could conclude that though Clinton won't be as bad as Obama,
something unimaginable, she is unlikely to be significantly less bad. In
contrast, Trump who may prove to be much worse than Obama, something quite
possible, may also prove to be significantly less bad.
Putting one's chips on Trump is a gamble with a real possibility of losing.
Betting on Clinton, however, is no gamble because we already know that her
personal qualities aside, she is likely to reproduce the losses that the Obama
administration has inflicted on the US and its allies. Having said that,
American voters should have one concern above all: Which candidate might heal
the rift that is damaging to the very fabric of their nation?
The Middle East, indeed the whole world, needs a strong and United America if
only because America remains the only power capable of making a big difference
for better or for worse. I often remember these words from the British
diplomat and writer John Buchan in his marvelous 1929 novel ''The Courts of
the Morning'':
''No power or alliance of powers can defeat America. But assume that she is
compelled to quarrel with a group of {enemies} and that with her genius for
misrepresenting herself appears to have a bad cause… Has she many friends on
the globe? Most countries will flatter her and kowtow to her and borrow money
from her. But they hate her like hell… Inside her borders she has half a dozen
nations instead of one who could prevent her {from acting decisively}.''
In the same book, Buchan's principal hero Sandy, an English peer, has this to
say:
''I really believe in
liberty, though it is out of fashion. And because America, in her queer way,
is on the side of liberty, I am for America!''
Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and educated in Tehran,
London and Paris. He was Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran
(1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday Times. In
1984-92, he served as member of the Executive Board of the International Press
Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the
International Herald Tribune. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, the
New York Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French magazine
Politique Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005,
he was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11
books, some of which have been translated into 20 languages. He has been a
columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian
Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and New York.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments