Mid-East minefield for hopefuls

By Paul Adams
BBC News, Washington

Mr McCain visited Iraq after securing the Republican nomination

Five years on from the Iraq invasion, the war looms large over the US presidential campaign.

As the anniversary was being marked, the Republican candidate, confident of his party's nomination, was touring the Middle East, while the two Democratic rivals tore strips out of each other back home over the degree of their opposition to the war.

Last year, Republican Senator John McCain's campaign seemed to be going as badly as the war. But as the surge has delivered on the ground, in reduced violence, so his fortunes have improved.

Back home, meanwhile, Democrat Barack Obama says Americans are "less safe and less able to shape events abroad".

But what about the wider region? As the presidential candidates vie for power, what, if anything, is there to gain from straying into the minefield of interconnected Middle Eastern issues?

Resist the temptation

The short answer is - if you have anything more than mere platitudes in mind, resist the temptation. It is all too complicated and, besides, voters at home simply do not care.

There is one notable exception. Jewish voters in swing states like Florida and Michigan care a great deal about Israel.

Presidential candidates know they must establish their credentials as strong supporters of the Jewish state.

Almost certainly this was part of John McCain's calculation in embarking on a Middle East tour.

By visiting the southern Israeli town of Sderot, repeatedly hit by rockets fired from Gaza, he demonstrated his concern for Israel's security.

Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation Barack Obama

His endorsement of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was also standard fare from a presidential hopeful.

Countless candidates have made similar pledges in the past, and in 1995, Congress passed a Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the US to move its embassy from Tel Aviv.

Presidents since then have continued to defer a decision, six months at a time, recognising that the future of Jerusalem is one of the core "final status issues" that should not be pre-empted.

Similar language

In terms of the detail of the Arab-Israeli dispute, there is little to choose between any of the current candidates.

Peruse their policy statements and you will find very similar language, in which the ties that bind the US and Israel are placed front and centre.

As the former state department Middle East expert Aaron Miller wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times: "No figure in American mainstream politics can be viable without being firmly supportive of Israel."

Senator Obama will not 'push the Israelis'

But his article was triggered by questions within the Jewish community about Senator Barack Obama's commitment to Israel.

Charges of hostility toward Israel were, he said "being irresponsibly bandied about."

Speaking in February to members of Cleveland's Jewish community, Obama did hint at a willingness to change the terms of the debate over Israel.

"Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under," he was reported as saying, "I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation."

Twitchy

Referring to Israel's right-wing opposition party, Mr Obama also criticised what he called the "strain within the pro-Israel community that says that unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel".

[John McCain] will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah - he isn't going to push the Israelis Lawrence Eagleburger Former US Secretary of State

If that made some supporters of Israel twitchy, the row over Mr Obama's association with the firebrand preacher, Rev Jeremiah Wright, who has accused Israel of "state terrorism against the Palestinians", simply fuelled Jewish doubts about the Democratic contender.

Dan Kurtzer, a Princeton professor and former US ambassador to Israel who now acts as a foreign policy advisor to the Democratic front-runner, on Monday told a public meeting that when it came to Israel, "there aren't any differences among the three candidates".

But Senator Obama's opponents point to the fact that he has expressed a willingness to talk to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, a man who's expressed his desire to see Israel wiped off the map.

Speaking at the same public meeting, former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, who supports Mr McCain, was keen to draw as sharp a distinction as possible.

Mrs Clinton has criticised the Bush administration's Middle East policy

His candidate, he said, "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah…He isn't going to push the Israelis."

Hillary Clinton's public pronouncements also indicate a strongly pro-Israel stance, as one would expect from a senator representing New York.

She supported Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006, and the building of its security barrier, while avoiding criticism of Israel's settlements policy.

Like Mr Obama, she says the Bush administration's reluctance to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process until last year was a mistake.

Like the others, she also avoids getting drawn into saying exactly what she would do to move that process along.