It is rather tempting to consider the 2016 U.S. elections as a pivotal turning point for the Middle East and its many problems. Truth is, the scope of these crisis, and the platform of the different U.S. candidates suggest that while more leadership and engagement could alleviate the suffering, resolving the conflicts is not contingent on the U.S. Presidency.
Campaign promises vs. reality
The next resident of the White House, whether he or she is a Republican or Democrat or Independent, will be confronted with tighter limitations on U.S. influence and a more defiant Middle East.Joyce Karam
It is not uncommon, however, for U.S. candidates to make popular promises on the campaign trail and then execute a different set of policies while in the oval office. After all, it was Bush in 2000 who ran on anti-nation building platform, and ended up taking on the most expensive nation-building project for the U.S. in the Middle East. Obama for his part has promised to end U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan, but was forced to change course, and extend U.S. presence to counter the Taliban. When it comes to breaking free from the Iran deal, it is worth noting that the next President will be bound with UN resolutions and international commitments of his predecessor.