The Multidimensional Puzzle of the Middle East for Clinton

In the first part of this report, we discussed the major international challenges facing the next U.S. administration and how Hillary Clinton would confront issues such as tensions in relations with Russia and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians if elected. In this section, however, we will focus on the Middle East and review some prominent issues facing Mrs. Clinton. The Middle East, as Sanam Vakil, a researcher at the Chatham House in London, states: "The Middle East never fails to create new challenges for a political leader, and unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is faced with multiple crises in this regard, making it hard to imagine where she would start." Both Ms. Vakil and many other Middle East observers prioritize Syria at the top of the long list of Middle Eastern challenges, where approximately six years of war have left over 270,000 dead and millions displaced. This crisis has led to the rise of the group known as the Islamic State and has confronted Europe with a migration crisis. Barack Obama, the current U.S. president, has faced intense pressure in recent years for not using military options after Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons. Although, as John Tirman, executive director of the Center for International Studies at MIT, says, it does not seem that Hillary Clinton would make a significant change in this policy, she will have some differences with Barack Obama: "Mrs. Clinton will act more proactively in utilizing U.S. resources in a place like Syria, but she will not have many options for military intervention in the Middle East, and she stated in the second debate that she would not use ground troops in Syria. This makes sense because the American people are not inclined towards a war in the Middle East. At the same time, she calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone and similar issues, which are very complex. She wants to defeat ISIS, which will be a very gradual process and will have a high human cost." The Syrian crisis is assessed as multifaceted. On one hand, it is a conflict between Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, and his armed opponents, but multiple countries have complicated the situation by supporting one side or the other. Washington, which has always supported Assad's opponents, turns Syria into one of the points where Hillary Clinton's foreign policy will face challenges from Moscow, while on the other hand, she must confront Tehran, which has consistently supported Assad's regime. This challenge, as John Tirman in the U.S. states, like many other issues, must be approached with a dual strategy to reach a solution: "I think there is hope that Iran and Russia will remove Assad from power, and this is when very complex diplomacy must come into play. Following this removal, the situation in Syria must be preserved in such a way that more radical elements among the rebels do not take power. It seems that this is the goal, but how they can achieve this goal has been proposed in various ways and justifications, and it is unclear which one will be feasible. Part of this issue is isolating Iran and Russia as supporters of a criminal in Damascus, but at the same time encouraging them to take constructive action." The next U.S. administration will also face a different Tehran, as Iran envisions a different position for itself in the region and internationally following its nuclear agreement with world powers. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate in the U.S. presidential election, who initiated secret talks for the nuclear agreement during her tenure as Secretary of State, supports this agreement and states that since it contributes to international security, the U.S. will adhere to this agreement if she becomes president. Dennis Ross, one of the first American diplomats to receive the message of mediation from Oman regarding Iran's readiness for nuclear negotiations, previously spoke with Radio Farda about the Democratic candidate's policy in this regard, mentioning a significant difference: "I believe that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will adhere to the commitments made under the JCPOA, but if you even listen to her speech on this matter, she emphasizes the precise implementation of the agreement. I think the policy regarding the implementation and commitment of the U.S. will be similar to this administration, but in formal rhetoric, there will be less sensitivity regarding the interpretation of harsher statements in Iran. The Obama administration seems very cautious not to give hardliners in Iran an opportunity to exploit harsh statements. I think the Clinton administration will be less sensitive in this regard; the Iranians have no sensitivity about their provocative statements against us, so I don't know why we should be sensitive about this." Many analysts believe that Hillary Clinton, if elected president, will adhere to the nuclear agreement with Iran and its implementation while also having to deal with the issue of Iran's neighbors and rivals in the region. Countries such as some members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who were somewhat dissatisfied with the U.S. approach during the nuclear negotiations and the agreement. As Sanam Vakil in London states, Mrs. Clinton has an opportunity to improve this situation: "Barack Obama has somewhat retreated from those traditional relationships and has openly criticized them. The key to this matter is the openness of these criticisms. Because privately, I believe the background of these relationships remains strong. As a result, Clinton has an opening before her that she can utilize and continue. I believe she will wholeheartedly continue the U.S. commitment to the JCPOA, but at the same time, she will act much more traditionally towards America's allies (in the Gulf) and Israel. I think the personal tension that Obama brought with him will no longer exist." Another issue that Hillary Clinton will need to address if elected is the war in Yemen, which is also assessed in the context of the same regional rivalry. A war in which the armed Houthi Shiites, who were said to be supported by Iran, are on one side, and Saudi Arabia and its allied countries are on the other. The U.S. is also one of the countries that has entered this war due to arms sales to Saudi Arabia and has faced criticism for it. The regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia is evident not only in Yemen but also in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These rivalries have led to a break in diplomatic relations between the two countries and an open conflict. Barack Obama, the U.S. president, stated in an interview with The Atlantic that although the U.S. will not prefer Iran over its traditional allies, Iran and Saudi Arabia should be able to divide the region between themselves and reach a kind of "cold peace." Some observers, like Dan Arbelle from the Middle East Policy Center at Brookings Institution, believe this approach of Barack Obama will not continue under Clinton's presidency: "I think Mrs. Clinton will engage with the moderate regimes in the Arab region and will try to strengthen America's alliance with these countries, which in recent years have been very angry that the U.S. has forgotten them and does not support them." However, there is another approach that believes Hillary Clinton, if elected president, must make a fundamental decision regarding America's relationship with a traditional ally like Saudi Arabia; among them is John Tirman in Boston, who emphasizes that analyzing the outlook of Washington-Riyadh relations is not simple, but predicts a kind of maintenance of the status quo: "The current question for Hillary Clinton is that the U.S. is currently really supporting the Saudi military intervention in Yemen, and we must see whether she supports the Saudi's hostile approach against Iran in general or not. The situation in Syria is also somewhat a result of the Saudi support and that of other Gulf states, especially Qatar and the UAE, for some very radical elements in Syria who are trying to overthrow Assad, who is an ally of Iran. As a result, we have multiple issues with the Saudis, and add to this the issue of oil prices, and it is unclear what Clinton will do in these areas. My guess leans more towards maintaining the status quo. However, the Saudi abuses must also be addressed." Among all these diplomatic challenges in the Middle East, the issue of the group known as the Islamic State or ISIS must also be added, with no negotiations envisioned with it, and Hillary Clinton, like any politician, has promised to fight and eradicate it. Mrs. Clinton once said during her election campaign that if she uses initiative and confidence, the future will be more a combination of opportunities than threats; now it remains to be seen how she will shape America's future and its foreign policy with this worldview if she reaches the White House as president.