This is the last issue we will publish before the identity of the next U.S. president is known. At that time, the soul-deadening campaign rhetoric will have abated, and the foreign-policy discussion will involve a bit more realism. Recently in the news, there has been a hint that adults will be taking over after the election. Mitt Romney has announced his choice for leader of a national-security transition team: Robert Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state and one-time head of the World Bank. Cries of foul rose from the neoconservative ranks that dominate the Republican campaign, for Zoellick was the second in command to James Baker when he ran the State Department for George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992. That administration insisted on promoting Arab-Israeli peace — at an international conference in Madrid, following the war to liberate Kuwait. It was considered overly critical of the government of Israel, led at the time by the right-wing Yitzhak Shamir. President Bush later stood up to body blows from the Israel lobby when he withheld U.S. loan guarantees for settlement building in the Occupied Territories. He had the nerve to call attention to his plight: "I'm just one lonely little guy up against some powerful political forces,"..."a thousand lobbyists on the Hill." He lost his reelection bid in 1992; some say the poor economy was to blame.

This object lesson has not been lost on either presidential candidate. During Romney's recent trip to Israel, accompanied by Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the presumptive Republican nominee vowed that the U.S. government, should he be elected to lead it, would put Israel's interests first. Romney's pitch was emotional, but he might have stopped short of insulting Arab culture. Sadly, he did not. As there is no electoral penalty for offending Arabs, he praised his hosts' superiority while never mentioning a half-century of Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands. Romney placed responsibility for the shocking socioeconomic inequities in the "holy" land on divine Providence. One can only feel embarrassment for the enlightened Israeli and American Jews who took note of this exercise. The New York Times called it "troubling ignorance," but Romney's core supporters agree with him, and most American voters are focused on the economy and social issues.

What is to be understood from the candidates' shameless pandering? Are they just trolling for votes? Perhaps it is more aptly termed a response to extortion, warding off harm. Rumor has it that the Netanyahu government is trying to wring a promise from President Obama — to be signed before the election — to attack Iran by June 2013 unless it gives up nuclear enrichment. The Israeli leader has threatened to attack Iran without American help, but that would be the act of a desperate man. Netanyahu likely sees himself as a kingmaker, extracting as many favors as possible from the U.S. president while working for his defeat. Going it alone in attacking Iran would be very risky for Israel; it might even boost Obama's fortunes just before the election.

The interests of the United States and Israel are described by both Democratic and Republican candidates as identical, with not even a ray of daylight separating them. Therefore, the enemies of the Jewish state are the enemies of America. Yet there is little discussion in our elite media about the harsh realities of the Middle East. On the front page of The New York Times on August 17 ran a story headlined "U.S.-Egypt Tie: Glimpse of Ire by Army Chief." The news was this: "The U.S. military presence and its ‘one-sided' support of Israel [are] fueling hatred toward the United States and miring it in an unwinnable global war with Islamist militants." This reflects the thinking of the mid-level officers being promoted by the new regime. It is not news to readers of this publication. In fact, we ran Ahmed Hashim's history of the Egyptian military during the past year (also see part two of his "The Iranian Military in Revolution, Politics and War" on page 65). The background and salient details of other unfolding events in the Middle East are analyzed in the articles and book reviews in this issue, from the Gulf up to Russia, with special emphasis on Syria, the hottest spot on the geopolitical map. Our Capitol Hill conference on the conflict there drew a large audience and was broadcast on C-SPAN, among other media outlets.

The U.S. government and American cultural leaders ignore the thoughts and feelings of Arab and Muslim Middle Easterners at the risk of peace and security. Yet we obey the Israeli diktat that no talking, never mind negotiating, is to take place with Iran, even in the interest of avoiding a wider war in Syria. Of course, it is perhaps too soon to try to stop the fighting there, and the list of rebel contenders is confusing. By the standards of civil wars the world over, Syria's may have just begun. In a revelatory analysis in The Washington Post (August 12) misleadingly titled "Stopping Syria's War," Kenneth Pollack of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution traces the likely next steps for the U.S. administration. Because the humanitarian situation is not catastrophic, on the scale of Bosnia or even Libya (yet), and Syria is not a major oil producer or U.S. ally, he asserts that American vital interests are not at stake. However, if neighboring countries like Israel or Turkey were threatened, the calculus would shift.

Pollack was in favor of the war against Iraq. His arguments, later repudiated after the extent of the catastrophe became clear, were laid out in the influential 2002 book The Threatening Storm. It was a plan for remaking the Middle East, the costs grossly low-balled, considering the need for American boots on the ground. Today, Pollack sounds more realistic, and his close ties to the U.S. military and the CIA (he was a former Company analyst) give his conclusion official heft: "Spillover may force Washington to contemplate real solutions to the Syrian conflict, rather than indulge in frivolous sideshows. If that day comes, our choice will almost certainly be between picking a winner and leading a multilateral intervention." It is best not to over-interpret his recommendations, but in 2002, war enthusiasts in the Bush administration were looking for justification for what they intended to do in Iraq. This time it is different, even for a potential Romney administration staffed by neoconservative hawks.

A week earlier, a more seasoned realist had held forth in the Post's op-ed pages on balancing ideology and stability, Henry Kissinger:

The United States can and should assist on the long journey toward societies based on civil tolerance and individual rights. But it cannot do so effectively by casting every conflict entirely in ideological terms. Our efforts must also be placed within a framework of U.S. strategic interests, which should help define the extent and nature of our role.