There is a question of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East in the wake of the mid-term elections. A few things have changed for America. Immigration has a new beginning with a chance for comprehensive historic legislation, whereas trade with comprehensive historical legislation has gone down. The President of the United States may not be able to change these issues in his last term.

We will start to see a lot more hearings. Congress will rediscover its power to question the administration on its foreign policy. It is one of the few things that the Congress can do given the constitutional biased. Continuity is likely to change in American foreign policy. There is also the domination of the Iraq issue. Discretionary resources are limited because so much is involved in Iraq and Iran. We do, however, have resources in diplomacy, if we chose to use them.

Involvement in Iraq is dominant. The pressure is growing to limit U.S. involvement in Iraq. Skepticism is involved about the surge of force used to enter. There is skepticism about the al-Maliki government, where it is more sectarian than truly national.

Democrats seem bent on avoiding getting involved in the Iraq issue. Washington is searching for middle ground between the President’s goal of more involvement in Iraq, and the democrats who want less involvement. Many of these people calling for less involvement militarily are calling for more involvement of training the current government in Iraq and more diplomatic negotiations. There is some truth to the details found by the Iraq study group in terms of the military involvement, and those particulars will soon become reality.

As it was said before, the Iran issue is more important than ever. Strategically this is true, but it is not the case politically in the American debate. It is possible in the next year or two that the Iranian issue could become political if problems in Iraq die down and Iran comes to the forefront with more Uranium enrichment and nuclear development. However, we are not there yet. The major concern in the last few weeks has been over assertive language concerning Iran in preventing a war or with widening a war from the Iranian enrichment perspective. There is some support for negotiations, less than there would be if Ahmadinejad had not come on the scene.

The U.S. should not negotiate with Iran right now. First, we need stability in Iraq. The Iranians and Syrians do not want to see Iraq come apart. They do not want to see a massive regional war. Diplomacy has two functions: it may succeed. However, if it doesn’t succeed – it may clarify. We need to use diplomacy to clarify before we rush off to search for other options. I would support diplomacy towards Iran. It may work, but if not – it will certainly clarify things.

There is no consensus within the democrats or republicans in Congress on what the red line is with Iran or what the green line is. If things are judged to be intolerable, what should be done? The so called “peace process” has not seen a lot of attention in Washington in the past six years. There is a tremendous opportunity with Syria that would involve the U.S. and Israel in reducing Syria’s involvement with Iran.

This could result in a peace treaty that would stop Syrian weapons armament to Lebanon in exchange for Israel giving up territory. I do not understand the reticence to explore diplomacy. If it fails, it fails! You are not forced to accept what you negotiate. I do not understand the emphasis on preconditions before you negotiate. It does not matter where you begin but where you end. What is the bottom line? Be prepared for that. In the case of the Palestinians I am pessimistic. The leadership division doesn’t help the matter at hand.

Reform has been given a bad name and it will have to be rethought possibly by this administration, but more likely by the next administration. It needs to be rethought through the sequence of reform. What is the pace of political reforms? Where do elections fit in this process? Holding early elections is anything but democratic and needs to be fundamentally reconsidered.

It leaves us with Iraq being the dominant issue. Success and victory make no sense in this context. U.S. policy in the next two years will focus on what can be avoided rather than what can be achieved. The President will not walk away from Iraq and congress will not succeed in changing legislation to back out of Iraq. Iran will fill some of the political space two years from now. The Palestinian issue will get more attention, but it does not appear to be given a break through in Washington.

The U.S. era in the Middle East is all but over. It was not inevitable, but it is because of the cost of being in Iraq, the cost of globalization, the dependency on oil, and the unwise emphasis of early elections. That is not to say that there will be a lack of U.S. influence in the region, just a lack of U.S. dominance. We are entering a prolonged era of a troubled and an unstable Middle East. It will be one of the two dominant challenges to the United States. The other is Asia, which will be defined by a tremendous amount of success in technology and in the market; its only weakness is that it has a lack of political framework to harness all that dynamism.