In a caricature about the presidential elections recently published in one US newspaper, Democratic candidate Barack Obama appears standing on a podium during a televised debate, faced not by any Republican candidate, but by an empty podium with the words “gasoline price” – i.e. the only “opponent” that appears to be threatening his reelection, in view of its repercussions on the domestic economic situation, which remains the main factor shaping the odds for any candidate. The view of Americans on the suitability of any Republican or Democrat for the presidency is usually, and overwhelmingly, based on the candidate's ability to resolve their livelihood concerns, lower taxes, provide additional services and bring about prosperity, or promise to do so. Yet they are forced this time to grant more concern to foreign policy, which is usually only followed by very few. The reason for this mixture of domestic and foreign factors being imposed on voters, even if indirectly, in the election next November is oil and its price, which is strongly connected to two inflamed issues currently being dealt with by US diplomacy: Iran and Syria, especially as some Republicans are calling for firmer stances on both, as well as voicing calls for direct military intervention. There is also one more important foreign factor, and that is Israel and its security concerns, casting its shadow on American considerations, not just because of the clout held by the influential Jewish lobby in politics and in the media, and the great care taken by any candidate to attract the votes of Jewish electors, but also because Obama is trying to avoid any misstep on the part of Israel that could inflame the whole Middle East and cause the price of a barrel of oil to reach extraordinary levels that would destroy any hope he might have of being reelected. And it seems that Israel's interests in the two issues of Syria and Iran are contradictory. Indeed, regarding Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu is pressuring to obtain a pledge that the United States will actively participate in any military strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and any vengeful reactions that might follow. Meanwhile on the Syrian issue, such a stance turns into a clear desire for no military intervention to take place against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, because the alternative currently available, in Israel's view, could mean activating the Golan front and igniting a new war in the region, one which the Israelis have not accounted for, as well as some of Syria's arsenal of heavy artillery falling into the hands of parties that would be difficult to keep in check. From Washington's perspective, any military action against Iran would mean a huge increase in the price of oil, which is why it is pressuring with all of its strength to rein in the Hebrew State. Meanwhile, the interests of the two sides meet over not adopting any military action against Syria, because this too, in addition to posing a threat to Israel's security, could provoke Iran and lead it to take action on numerous fronts, and also make the price of crude oil skyrocket. One of the things the US President is basing his considerations on are opinion polls, the latest of which shows that only 4 percent of Jewish voters consider Israel to be an important issue for them in the elections, while 51 percent consider the economy to be the most important issue. And although Obama asserted after his most recent meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister that the diplomatic approach to the Iranian issue would not last forever, and that “all options are on the table”, and despite the rising tone of the US on the necessity for Assad to step down and the killing to stop in Syria, one cannot expect anything new on those two issues before the presidential elections take place, and perhaps for long after that.
