Every four years the occasion of the US presidential elections turns into a media event around the world. Passionate reporters in the west as well as many other parts of the world closely follow the day-to-day developments of the elections starting with the presidential primaries. This unabated interest is understandable due to the power of the USwhich makes the president probably the most powerful leader in the world. What happens in the US is watched by everyone and sometimes events reverberate around the world such as the September 11 2001 attacks.

The election campaign which lasts about two years usually attracts interest from around the world. During the campaign views and statements may differ regarding foreign policy. But when elected any president will be influenced by strong lobbies who sometimes force their agenda on the US’s foreign policy.

So far Donald Trump seems to be ahead of all the Republican candidates. But will he become the Republican nominee? If so will it make a difference whether Trump Clinton or Sanders will eventually be elected as the next US president? It seems to be significant for US citizens but what does it mean to the Middle East in particular to the Arab countries?

The Arab region can partly be seen to be rethinking its strategic partnership with global powers. The Syrian war and its dramatic development may lead to new coalitions in the regions. The US does not seem anymore able to exercise any balance of power. The Russian involvement in the conflict seems instrumental so far in preventing the fall of the Syrian regime.

On another front the US as a traditional ally to the Gulf States does not seem to be keen on protecting them from the Iranian influence in the region. On the contrary the US has actually been consolidating its strategic relationship with Iran. The Nuclear deal and its aftermath is a case in point. So lots of questions have been raised with regard to the American foreign policy in the region. Sometimes these policies are confusing or seemingly meant to be so. In Iraq the US invaded a country to ostensibly free it from the regime of Saddam Hussain but eventually it paved the way for a pro-Iranian sectarian regime to arise and hold power which resulted in the oppression of the majority Sunni population.

During the current US presidential campaign the Arab world is reduced to fighting ISIS themselves. A vague sound bite type of discourse about the ‘Middle East’ is all we hear from American politicians and would be politicians which does not unveil their true plans for the future of this region. The regional dynamics and changing geopolitical realities in Syria Iraq and Yemen for instance are not apparent in what we hear today. The complex problems that the region is witnessing are simply brushed with one colour- fighting Daesh.

On the whole the American presidential campaign seems to be merely a sensational venture to attract voters who do not look at candidates’ resumes or track record but how convincing he/she comes over. Although Trump for instance is an unknown quantity in terms of his foreign policies strategies he is gaining ground. Trump has already proved racist or Islamo-phobic towards Muslims. He was also alluded to by the Pope in his statement as unfaithful to Christianity: “A person who only thinks about building walls wherever they may be and not building bridges is not Christian.” (Huffington Post 16 February 2016).

Contrary to him Hillary Clinton has a cumulative well-recognised experience in foreign policy and probably will be more accepted by world leadersapart from Putin. However this will not make any of them substantially different in dealing with the Arab world and ‘Middle East’ because none of them will ignore the ‘strategic interests’ of the US.

The Syrian problem has become outsized so far to the extent that it will be difficult for any president to deal with. Similarly while the Yemeni crisis is not under control it may develop into another uncontrollable conflict in the region if Iran and Russia intervene on the ground the same way they have in Syria.

For decades the American government position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been characterised by unwavering support for the Israeli government which America seems to feel it needs to do. The unremitting support takes various forms such as military supplies funding as well as political approval. Various US governments have been upping the military capabilities of the Israeli army including the settlers. There have also been continuous attempts to block any initiatives in the UN or other international policy bodies to condemn Israel’s continuous expansion of the settlements at the expense of Palestinian land and demolition of houses.

In sum on the foreign policy level there is very little difference between the candidates. Whoever becomes the pre-emptive nominee and eventually the presidential winner will normally adhere to the strategic interests of US. The American interests in the Arab region have existed for decades. Economic political and military interests will not substantially change because of a change of president.

The bottom line for people in the Arab region is what difference can Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump do to prevent further destruction of Syria- or to strike a path different from Obama’s or from that which George W Bush promised for Iraq or Palestine? The answer is certainly very little.

The US has long term strategies which do not simply change because of a change of its administration. What you hear in this presidential campaign is not what the region is interested in. That’s why the US Presidential elections and their outcome do not matter for the future of the Arab world.

The writer is Professor of Media and Communication. He can be reached via e-mail: