All U.S. economic indicators in recent weeks point towards an improvement, some slight, in key sectors. Housing prices rose, U.S. exports grew, the number of those receiving employment benefits fell while the U.S. economy managed to add 163,000 new jobs. The majority of observers following the U.S. elections, myself included, believe that the economy, ahead of any other factors, internal or external, will be the decisive issue that will settle the presidential elections in November. This means that Barack Obama will be reelected to a second term if the U.S. economy continues to improve, and will lose if the economy falters. I say this, then note a reservation I have here. Since the economic recovery remains limited, the winning candidate will be the one to succeed in convincing people of his stance. In other words, Obama must find a majority that agrees with him that the economy has improved in order to win, while his rival Mitt Romney needs to convince people that the positive figures are not true to win them over. More than two months separate the recent economic data and the first Tuesday in November, the day the Americans will vote. There is no guarantee that the improvement will be sustained, or confirmed information that it will abate. Therefore, it is best for us not to speculate on anything. Personally, I want to remind my Arab readers of something I had referred to when I wrote about the U.S. elections before, namely the so-called October Surprise, whereby someone inside or outside the administration may seek to bring about a new situation that would turn the elections upside down. Since I am concerned with the U.S. elections from the standpoint of Arab interests, that is, the protection of Arab interests from the influence of Israel and its advocates in the United States over U.S. foreign policy, the only surprise I can think of would be an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. In such a scenario, would the Obama administration intervene on Israel's side to silence the war cabal, or will it stay out of the confrontation, giving Obama's foes the chance to circulate thousands of ads that claim that Obama is a “closet Muslim", that he was not born in the United States, or that he is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood who have begun to infiltrate the corridors of power in Washington? These ads are important in the states where neither candidate commands a clear majority, such as Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin. But another problem here lies in Obama's unpopularity among white blue-collar voters. For this reason, I read that former President Bill Clinton will deliver the opening speech at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. All polls say that Clinton remains very popular among the white working class, and for this reason, he may be able to convince some that Obama understands their problems and is trying to help. Meanwhile, the announcement by Romney that his vice presidential candidate will be Paul Ryan is probably aimed at filling the gaps in his campaign. Indeed, he claims to be more experienced in economic issues, owing to his personal success. But the Democrats often respond to that by stressing that his record shows that he is the enemy of ordinary working people, i.e. the majority. Ryan's main skills are in the economy, as he is the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on the Budget. But Ryan's political experience is limited outside of his state, Wisconsin. The Americans who know Ryan know well that he is more conservative than Romney himself, and wants to reduce the size of the federal government and devolve many of its powers to the local states. He is considered a budget hawk, and has taken positions against abortion, and in favor of tightening border security to curb the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers. Personally, I feel that Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his candidate for the vice presidency is as bad as John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. In contrast with the dispute over whether the economy has improved or not, and who is to blame for the ongoing financial crisis to begin with, the position on Israel and its interests, which most U.S. politicians place above the interests of their own country, is clear. Both Obama and Romney support Israel, but the latter's advocates believe that Romney's support goes further than Obama's. Nearly all the advocates of Israel are on Romney's side, and claim that the president is pursuing a secret agenda with the Muslim world against the Jews. Personally I find the difference between the incumbent president and his opponent very small, but nevertheless it is there. To be sure, both men support the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, a racist and criminal government. Both men are on this government's side against Iran – which poses no threat to the U.S. whatsoever. Obama and Romney both champion identical views on the settlements and defend them, and on the peace process and the (deliberate) lack thereof. While Romney did declare that he wants to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, this is what every presidential candidate before him did as well, but did not carry out his promise once he entered the White House. At any rate, Barack Obama said at the conference of the Israel lobby (AIPAC) that he considers Jerusalem to be the “eternal capital" of Israel. In other words, the Democratic and Republican candidates disagree on everything but agree against us. I don't blame either man for this, since they just want to win, but blame the Arab countries which control the future of the global economy. I am not calling for blackmailing the U.S., Europe or other countries, but rather for us to further our own interests, and not the interests of the foreign gentlemen. Is that too much to ask? I will hear the answer one day, but only when it is too late, as usual. [email protected]
