With only days left before the Iowa Caucuses on January 24^th, the race is tightening between the US presidential candidates as Iowans prepare to meet in their caucuses to publicly voice support, one by one, for their preferences. Despite the importance that Iowa holds historically for being a barometer of American public opinion, this election does not seem as pivotal as one would expect from this leading Midwestern state; they’re all pretty much the same.

More importantly, an examination of the leading candidates hardly shows a change in stance regarding foreign policy issues that are of concern to Arabs and Arab-Americans. They may differ in their proposed treatments of issues regarding defense spending, China, Russian instability, Cuba, and other global issues, but the attitude towards the Middle East in particular – and the Middle East in general – remains the same. It is now almost safe to say that the Republican race is between George W. Bush and John McCain; the other four Republican nominees are either running simply to prove a point, or because they somehow seriously believe that they will catch up. It also seems that the Reform party is reserved for celebrity actors, professional wrestlers, accused anti-Semites, the mentally unstable and egotistical billionaires with dwindling self-esteem.

All things considered, the leading candidates have little to offer the Arab-American voter who maintains aspirations for his or her country of origin. Republican Gary Bauer, who spoke to the Republican Jewish Committee late last year in an effort to impress Jewish voters, classically displayed this conformity. Anticipating a question that would somehow affect the well being of American voters, Bauer was first asked if he would support moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Bauer looked around and replied, "I guess I should say ‘Yes’ to that, right?"

The chuckling audience was hardly impressed.

The remaining candidates differ ever so slightly: George W. Bush wants to improve ties with "pro-American" Arab countries while achieving a peace in the Middle East that guarantees "a safe and secure Israel". Al Gore’s official position is elusive enough to infer that he subscribes to the current policies of the Clinton administration. Bill Bradley seemingly wishes to cut down defense spending while maintaining the US upper hand in foreign politics, reaping the benefits of globalization (however you may wish to define it) while protecting Americans from its "downsides". John McCain, not too surprisingly, places particular importance on the value of America’s relationship with Israel, and maintains that the US has been overly lenient with Iraq. More importantly, however, McCain has decided to skip the Iowa caucuses altogether, opting instead to focus his efforts on New Hampshire and the East Coast states.

Such is the variety facing the average Arab-American voter in these elections. The policies adopted towards the Arab world are to remain as they have for the last decade or so, with the security and well-being of Israel superseding all other interests, even if this is harmful to the United States. For instance, US media outlets have managed to skip the minor detail of Israel demanding $22 billion in aid if peace is achieved with Syria. In retrospect, such a demand sounds like an offer to give you all the money in the world if you could teach your dog to read War and Peace backwards – in Russian.

The relevance of the Iowa caucuses here, therefore, is its role as an indicator rather than as an event which Arab-American voters will participate in. Americans of Arab and Muslim descent in this country are consistently left out of the political process because they lack any significant lobbying pressure. Perhaps this is why Middle Eastern Americans do not even count as an official minority; they do not seem to care about it, either. Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims persist, but almost no one is listening. There are few concerted efforts that aim to garner public support for issues affecting Arab-Americans, mostly because of fear of reprisal by the US government.

The balance is tipping in favor of Bush, who in all likelihood would be unable to locate the Middle East on a map. Nevertheless, he offers the American public the charisma and attitude of his father; he can more or less say the right thing at the right time, which is about enough for the average American voter these days. The spin-doctors usually take care of the rest.