How the Two Candidates Approach the Islamic World

By Professor John Esposito

Obama's Scorecard

The Obama Administration will face substantial challenges in US-Islamic World relations in its second term. The enthusiasm for Obama's Cairo speech evaporated as many in the Islamic world and elsewhere perceived a gap between the President's vision and rhetoric versus his policies and actions. Many saw little difference from George W. Bush's policies and Obama's: failure to close Guantanamo and continued use of military courts, deployment of some 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, backtracking and retreat from his firm stance on ending illegal Israeli settlements, the decision not to investigate the rendition programme, and continued support for authoritarian but allied regimes. The administration initially won plaudits for its role in Libya (now threatened by the failure of US security agents' reports that the killing of the US ambassador and other diplomats was a terrorist attack), the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and after initial hesitation and waffling, its move to work with new governments in Tunisia and Egypt, but has been chided by critics for its failure to respond effectively to conditions in Bahrain and Syria. As a result, Obama now faces a much more sceptical audience in the Islamic world that will not be easily wooed simply by better rhetoric.

A second term for Obama would enable him to reclaim and try to implement the strategic global vision initiated in his Cairo speech and the early days of his presidency. His legacy could be a new multilateral American policy, one that works in partnership with the EU and emerging Arab democracies and redefines America's place in a multi-polar world. As it simultaneously pursues US national interests and American values of democracy, equality, and human rights, the administration will be challenged by a sometimes messy, post-revolutionary process. It will need to work with new governments, including Islamist-led governments, as partners not client states, to lead with soft power (educational, technological and economic assistance) and to use hard power only as a last resort. 

Obama's reticence in supporting the Syrian opposition with words but not weapons will be challenged by a coalition of Republican leaders, an increasing number of Democrats and some European and Arab allies to provide arms in this David vs. Goliath contest.

 Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains a seemingly intractable issue for Obama. US policy-makers face newly empowered Arab publics (and elected governments) that will be more independent and critical of Israel's policies and America's perceived inability to stand up to the Netanyahu government. Obama will need to fulfil the terms of his Cairo speech regarding illegal Israeli settlements and support for a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. At the same time, he may again face a Congress that uncritically supports the Netanyahu government. Whether Obama has the will to confront Netanyahu and muster the support of Congress in this effort remains to be seen.

Mitt Romney's Approach to the Middle East

A Mitt Romney presidency is more difficult to predict, given his lack of experience and track record in foreign affairs. His October foreign policy speech did attempt to strengthen his credentials on foreign policy and differentiate himself from President Obama. Romney has adopted the global vision of George W. Bush and the neoconservative 'Project for a New American Century,' declaring that, 'The 21st century can and must be an American century' and that America's friends and allies have 'a longing for American leadership in the Middle East. Romney's celebration of the US's 'proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership,' and assertion 'so many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind' seems oblivious to the findings of major polls (Gallup, PEW and others). That, while the US is admired for its principles and accomplishments, many in the Islamic world (and others) fault the US for not adhering to its own principles. Few believe the US backs democracy and fear unwanted US intervention and interference in their affairs. Ironically, a number of Romney's other policies are little different from those of Obama: the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan; commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability through international sanctions with a military option as a last resort; and to work toward a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict (a radical turnaround from his secretly videotaped description of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement as 'hopeless'). However, at the same time, he undermined US credibility as an honest broker by declaring that, 'the world must never see any daylight between our two nations' in US-Israel relations and promising increased military assistance to Israel. In so doing, his so-called 're-commitment' of 'America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel' will ring hollow to Palestinians.

 Both Obama and Romney agree that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and both advocate tough sanctions and non-appeasement in diplomacy. However, while Obama emphasises multilateral efforts, Romney advocates a US leadership that pre-emptively sets policy, and assumes that European allies will follow. Likewise, in contrast to Obama, Romney unequivocally states that the US should defend Israel's right to defend itself unilaterally, even in the case of pre-emptive air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

 Asserting American Dominance Vs. Understanding the Limits of US power

 While Obama understands the nature of Arab Spring or uprisings, Romney does not.  Obama recognises a broad-based popular uprising against oppressive regimes, a movement of citizens for dignity, respect and national empowerment. He appreciates the limits of American power, the need to assist Arab reformers and the processes of democratisation but not attempt to shape or intervene.

In contrast Romney's call for a return to American unilateralism, reclaiming 'America's great power to shape history' and desire to resurrect US dominance (and not simply pre-eminence) in world affairs, is a recipe that will feed anti-Americanism and alienate many European allies.

Professor John Esposito is Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.