Mitt Romney's pledge "to use America's great power to shape history" is likely to be applauded by those in Israel who interpret it as getting tough with Iran. But any indication that interventionism could extend to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be much less welcome.
Romney's message to Israel was that the US under his leadership would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with its ally, and that the evident personal warmth and ideological similarities between him and Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu would be in marked contrast to Obama's distance and chilliness.
"The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains," said Romney. "The president explicitly stated that his goal was to put 'daylight' between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran."
Later he added: "I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security – the world must never see any daylight between our two nations."
Some of this is deceptive electioneering. Despite the acute tension between Obama and Netanyahu over the Iranian nuclear programme, the current president has also frequently reaffirmed the historic ties between the two allies, continued a policy of unswerving commitment to Israel's security, threatened to use the US veto against the Palestinians at the United Nations and pumped billions of dollars in military aid to Israel.
But "daylight" on the Iran issue undoubtedly exists, especially around the issue of "red lines" which, if crossed, would trigger US military action. Obama has resisted Netanyahu's pressure to define any red lines. Yet Romney's speech also failed to meet this demand, pointed out Tel Aviv-based analyst Meir Javedanfar.
In his speech, Romney pledged to "put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability". Obama has repeatedly done the same.
Romney went on: "I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region – and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated."
Iranian-born Javedanfar said: "There are two words he didn't say: red line. But he also didn't say he would continue with diplomacy. If Romney stopped talking to the Iranians, it would be very difficult to legitimise new sanctions, and very difficult to keep the Russians and Chinese on board."
Romney's promise to impose new sanctions and enhance the US military presence in the region were not impressive, said Javedanfar. "There are going to be new sanctions anyway. US forces are already stationed in Qata, and the fifth fleet is in Bahrain," he said, dismissing Romney's pledges as "cosmetic".
Towards the end of his speech, Romney clarified his position on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the president has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew."
This brief statement was an attempt to repair damage caused by the release of video-recorded comments made by the Republican candidate at a fundraising event in May. Then he accused the Palestinians of having no interest in peace and suggested the world needed to learn to live with this "unsolved problem".
'Obama has been no more nor less effective than Bush'
Despite suggesting only a new president could solve an old conflict, Romney's speech offered nothing fresh, said independent Palestinian analyst Mouin Rabbani. "This sounds like what Obama said about his predecessor".
He went on: "We've got to the point where we're best off not taking seriously any public statements from the US, but rather with a hefty grain of salt. Obama is committed to a negotiated two-state settlement but in practice has done absolutely nothing to promote this framework. Instead the US has used virtually all the instruments in its power to stop it … and US support for Israel is becoming more uncritical and unconditional."
Asked if it would make any difference to the Palestinian cause if the world wakes up to a Romney presidency on November 7, Rabbani said: "I woke up four years ago to an Obama presidency, and I've stayed awake since. If you can identify a substantial difference between Obama and his predecessors, I'd be very eager to hear it.
"If we are genuinely interested in peace in the Middle East, our first priority must be to get past the framework of a US-sponsored bilaterally-negotiated settlement. The US monopoly on this must be challenged. We need to find a different approach in which we don't rely on the US."
Mark Heller of the Institute of National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University said Obama had indeed failed to advance the goal of a Palestinian state living side by side with an Israeli state, but so had his predecessors, and so probably would Romney.
"The question is: has Obama managed to promote that objective? And the answer is: no, he hasn't. But you could say that about every previous American president and probably every future one, too.
"Too many people over-estimate the power of a US president. Obama has been no more nor less effective than Bush, Clinton or Bush senior.
"The US has a significant and probably indispensable role to play when the circumstances are right. But the circumstances now are not favourable to active and productive US intervention.
"If Romney wins the election, there may be less friction between him and Netanyahu. But fundamentally, I'm not sure it makes that much difference. It's true there have been serious contretemps between Obama and Netanyahu, but fundamentally Obama has stood by Israel in his first term. I don't think a Romney presidency would be fundamentally different or better."
Front Page Features