Those who had been waiting for the American presidential elections to end in order to witness a dramatic change in the stances of the United States on the problems of the Middle East are going to be disappointed. It is not because Obama has won a second term, as Republican candidate Romney was not very different in his approach to the Arab situation, but rather because the approach that has dominated American policy towards the crises erupting in the Arab World will go on for another four years under the slogan: let them fester far away from us until an intervention from us becomes a demand made by everyone. In other words, the new/old administration will not change its stance of not arming the Syrian opposition, while waiting for what UN-AL Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is also waiting for, i.e. for both sides of the fighting to become so exhausted as to be convinced to negotiate. And until then, no one knows what the number of those killed, wounded, incarcerated and displaced will be. Indeed, the US President is not convinced that changing the balance of power in the Syrian war is part of his country's job, and resolutely excludes any direct intervention in this crisis, not just because of the stances taken by Moscow and Beijing, who both cling to keeping Bashar Al-Assad in power, but also because his strategy is based on the principle of withdrawing from regions of attrition in which there is no hope of achieving complete victory, as took place in Iraq and is currently taking place in Afghanistan, and focusing instead on supporting alliances and American presence in economically promising regions in Southeast Asia, where actual confrontation is taking place with China, the financial and economic giant with a steady influence. In fact, there are those in Washington who believe that the persistence of the bleeding in Syria and the likelihood of it spreading in its neighborhood will embarrass Russia and China and weaken their stances, and could soon force them to modify their calculations, especially at the Security Council, where the wager is on “teaching them a lesson" that would make them avoid in the future any thought of taking the world back to the era of the two poles. The Russians and the Chinese, on the other hand, believe that the increasing threats posed by the Syrian war will make the Americans submit to their demand of having the Assad regime supervise the transitional period, especially as they agree with them on the issue of “the threat of terrorist and extremist organizations". When it comes to Iran, Tehran is certainly happy that Obama has been reelected, because this for a while excludes the military option, which Israel has been pressuring for and which the Republican candidate was more likely to accept. Yet Obama will face a difficult test after he pledged that he would never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons and that the policy of economic sanctions was the best way to achieve this. Indeed, he will have to convince countries that disagree with his policy on Iran to implement the sanctions, which is unlikely at the moment, while the Iranians would find numerous ways to get around these sanctions, especially through Iraq and even Lebanon. In exchange for excluding the military option with Iran, Obama regains Israel's favor by letting it deal with the Palestinian issue as it pleases – after having completely stopped any American effort to revive the dead “peace process", overlooked diligent efforts to Judaize Jerusalem, accepted the Hebrew State's procrastination in implementing the Oslo Accords, and diverted the attention instead to the “danger" that resides in the Palestinian Authority's attempt to obtain semi-membership at the United Nations. It is unlucky, or perhaps lucky, for the Arab World that the “Spring" that started the wave of change in its countries and toppled tyrannical regimes, and will certainly topple others, has not been met with great enthusiasm in the US, which is preoccupied with other issues, and will have to find its way on its own.
