France's unilateral military intervention in Mali, and Washington stressing that it would not be sending any American troops to the soil of this country threatened to turn into an African “Afghanistan", and sufficing itself with examining the possibility of providing the French with logistical support, confirms the strategic transformation in the foreign policy of the United States, as defined by Barack Obama and based on gradually abandoning the enthusiasm of the Republican for waging foreign wars at an exorbitant cost in funds and human lives under the slogan of the “War on Terror", which has revealed itself to be without end. The currently prevailing stance of “bystander" taken by the US Administration applies, even if at varying degrees, to all parts of the world, especially the Middle East with its numerous issues. This was summed up in the sentence used by the US President to describe the relationship with the new Egyptian government, when he said: “I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy". The other aspect of these words is that America is unwilling to become the friend or the enemy of any country that does not have a direct impact on its interests, despite the importance of the role played by Egypt in the region as a whole. This is reflected perfectly well in Washington's stance on the Syrian crisis, where it prefers to let the confrontation between the opposition and the regime take its course, until one of the two settles the matter to their benefit, while at the same time recognizing the role played by other international and regional powers, such as Russia, China and Iran, in managing the battle there, and yielding to its results, even if it has continued to verbally support calls for change, without being greatly affected by the news of repeated massacres. Such “abandonment" by the US was reflected earlier, and still is, in confusion in stances on the Iranian nuclear issue. Indeed, Washington has overwhelmed itself with considerations of action and reaction, between, on the one hand, its fear of allowing Tehran to pursue its policies of uranium enrichment and regional expansion, and the threat this would represent to the situation in the region as a whole, and, on the other, its fear of taking the initiative to intervene directly, which could have even more harmful and dangerous results according to the assessment of some of its politicians, and would also pose a threat to the situation in the whole region. Regional parties, such as Egypt and Turkey, with encouragement from the US, had played a major role in forcing Israel to put a stop to its most recent war on Gaza, and to reach a truce that implicitly recognizes the Hamas Movement, which does not recognize the Hebrew State. The Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians knew how to make use of such American confusion to try and fill the vacuum. They thus succeeded, on the Syrian issue, to disable Washington's role at the Security Council, and to prevent any decision to intervene from being taken, even limited decisions such as establishing safe zones or a no-fly zone in order to alter the tremendous imbalance of power between the two sides. They also managed, on the Iranian issue, to preserve loopholes in the regime of sanctions, despite its severity, and to warn against the dire consequences of military intervention, providing Tehran with some space to breathe while waiting for the US to become more lenient with time. It will not be long before international forces try to take further advantage of America's “coma", by calling for Washington's withdrawal to be coupled with changes being made to the mechanisms of international decision-making by modifying the structure of the United Nations and its Security Council, after emerging economic and political forums had made similar calls. Yet this new American reality may well be a temporary one, as the Democratic Administration may not succeed during Obama's second term at proving to its citizens the benefits of the changes it is making for their economic situation, and the Republicans, who have been displaying fierce resistance, may be able to return to the White House in 2017, spurred on by their overwhelming desire to overturn this “overturning".
