11/01/2012
Palm - is not yet clear if it happens change in U.S. foreign policy after the presidential election, which is nearing its end? And to what extent? .. Although the Republican candidate "Mitt Romney" a lot to talk about changing the course of this policy in the Middle East - it is not clear enough or even reasonable on this change and the extent to which to inform him if he won the presidency, as does not seemPresident Democratic candidate "Barack Obama" and thorough in his speech about how to continue or change in this policy if he wins a second term.
The most important means Romney is criticism of Obama's policy, and accused him of negativity, and the inability to protect U.S. friends and foes, and sending a message stating the change of course.
But new or different path is not clear in his election year, which benefits can be drawn from it may not carry a fundamental change or shift head on Middle East issues.
This can be seen through his speech on four main issues:
Iran, Israel, Syria, and new systems of governance Islamic-leaning or "brotherhood".
- Is committed to tighten sanctions on Iran, and if this commitment to change is quantitative, not qualitative, however, can be found in his direction may be meaningful in the future, which is to reject Iran's possession of "the possibility of a nuclear". This differs from Obama's speech, who refuses to possess "nuclear weapon."
Perhaps the direction of Romney closer to what demanded by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a situation is a red line strictly for Iran today and not tomorrow, but this remains a conclusion not confirmed by an explicit commitment on the part of Romney, even if consort with the overall speech, which seems more severe toward Iran compared issued by the campaign, including Obama.
Although there is no significant difference in the directions prevalent in my campaign Obama and Romney on Israel - the Republican candidate's speech seems more intimate even after Democratic opponent stepped up his efforts and the efforts of his campaign to win her son and obtain the support of its supporters in the United States.
Valmarchan vying to reaffirm their commitment to the security of Israel and their commitment to protection of the law, nor declared differ in their rhetoric about the importance of the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state, perhaps not unlike Romney's speech signals only from time to time to increase military aid to Israel!.
So maybe the fundamental change that could have on Romney's victory is re warmth that I've missed the American-Israeli relations are relatively under the Obama administration first!.
- As for Syria, The difference that can be drawn only - so far - is that Romney is heading to a tougher stance against the Assad regime, and more support for the opposition.
He is committed to getting this opposition sufficient weapons (once used the term heavy weapons) to meet Assad tanks and helicopters and Mqatlath, also referred in passing to the issue of the establishment of safe areas, which Obama is still cautious about them.
It seems caution is master of the situation as well as to the issue of change witnessed in three Arab countries, and led to the arrival of the forces of political Islam to power in different forms; because recent experience does not allow ex convincing policy Obama, who realized early last year difficult to continue to support regimes lost base; seeks to adapt to the change the United States did not prefer.
But he went the extent to which exceeded what was expected, especially in Egypt when support accelerated termination of the transition, and he knows that the transfer of power to civilians means delivered to the group "Muslim Brotherhood"; not tested bet Obama to be the group in power other in opposition, although there is no sufficient evidence on the possibility of success, not to make this transition conditions to prevent the radicalization of some young people and turn to violence and the practice of terrorism.
Although Romney can find in Obama's policy toward the "Arab Spring" more than the entrance to launch a campaign by questioning his ability to deal with changes unexpected and sudden shifts - apparently he prefers not to dwell in detail in the case is still liquidity dominate them, and non-compliance position may become burden to him if he wins and bringing them to the White House.
Therefore contented himself with - so far - including for Israel in this area, which relations with Egypt; فحرص to confirm that it will link U.S. aid to Egypt to respect the peace treaty, and push them to strengthen relations with Israel, and to increase cooperation between the two countries.
This is the only commitment pledged by Romney - so far - on how to deal with transitions caused by harvesting the forces of political Islam "fruits" of the impact of the change the "Arab Spring"; confirmation of his position with Israel in the first place.
Therefore find Tel Aviv in Romney's position - keenest to strengthen relations, and increase the level of cooperation between Egypt and Israel - extra motivation to favor victory after Sri something cold in the limbs relations with Washington since Obama entered the White House.
nakhelnews
