在我们即将进入年末之际，世界紧张局势正在升级。华盛顿对俄罗斯的新冷战以及美国破坏中东局势稳定的尝试并没有为新的一年带来好兆头。
最近几周，由于中东的混乱局势和国际恐怖主义抬头，国际上的紧张局势正在急剧升温。最近的巴黎爆炸案并不令人惊讶，因为“伊斯兰国”、基地组织和他们众多的附属组织一直推行全球恐怖主义。亚洲也未能独善其身，伊斯兰极端分子在泰国制造了一起恐怖爆炸袭击案。
俄罗斯对叙利亚及其人民的坚定支持以及对“伊斯兰国”的无情打击正在取得成效。在俄罗斯的空袭行动以及在伊朗支持下的叙利亚地面部队和黎巴嫩真主党的联合打击下，“伊斯兰国”已经受到重创。
俄罗斯民航客机在埃及被袭击坠毁事件以及土耳其击落俄罗斯战机事件进一步升级了针对“伊斯兰国”恐怖分子及其盟友的战争。“伊斯兰国”的关键支持者是沙特阿拉伯、土耳其以及卡塔尔，这早已不是什么秘密，甚至美国副总统拜登也表达过同样的观点。
美国继续进行反阿萨德行动
然而奇怪的是，美国并没有停止对叙利亚发动派武装的支持，尽管他们与“伊斯兰国”和基地组织有着明确的联系。美国政府继续呼吁推翻阿萨德政权，并继续给予反动派以支持。
对于这一现象的一个解释是奥巴马政府继续延续着小布什时代的外交政策。美国在中东的政权更迭政策还没有改变。所以推翻阿萨德政权在美国外交界上层人士看来是继推翻伊拉克萨达姆政权和利比亚卡扎菲政权之后又一个关键的、合理的一步。
因为叙利亚和黎巴嫩真主党游击队被看作是伊朗的盟友，所以美国想要削弱他们。一个战略目标是防止伊朗通过叙利亚获得地中海的出海口。
中东的政策必然要涉及到阿拉伯国家、土耳其、伊朗和以色列。美国和其他大国的目标是在这个区域达成一个恰当的平衡，并且要认同这一地区形势的动态性和多种不确定性。任何要参与这一地区事务的人都要时刻做好感到诧异的准备。
在小布什政府期间，副总统切尼和他的国家安全人员主导了布什总统的想法。甚至老布什也在他的回忆录中公开指责切尼和他的鹰派顾问对于他的儿子造成了坏的影响。
切尼副总统及其新保守派的顾问对于中东问题上的战略政策从来都不是秘密。这一政策就是要把阿拉伯国家和以色列联合起来对抗伊朗及其盟友叙利亚和真主党。
土耳其的扩张主义政策
土耳其作为北约的一员理应支持这一政策。基于埃尔多安政府挺伊斯兰运动的政策和反阿萨德的行动来看，土耳其确实是支持这一政策的。但是土耳其的野心要比许多专家所谓的“新奥斯曼主义”还要大。很多专家认为土耳其希望扮演一个有影响力的角色，正如奥斯曼帝国曾经在中东以及中东周边区域扮演过的角色一样。
土耳其的新奥斯曼视野不仅有中东，还要延伸至中亚以及其他所有“突厥”民族所在的区域。当然，1000年以前征服了安那托利亚半岛的突厥人原先就是从中亚过去的。所以土耳其的新奥斯曼视野一直向东延伸甚至到了中国的新疆也就不奇怪了。
土耳其从海湾国家获取了大量投资。因此这些逊尼派伊斯兰封建国家必然会在逊尼派力量试图推翻世俗化的阿萨德政权时选择与土耳其合作，同时对抗属于什叶派伊斯兰国家的伊朗，以及在黎巴嫩的什叶派力量真主党游击队。
以色列也把伊朗及其盟友叙利亚和真主党视为最大的威胁，因此它会愿意与反对他们的穆斯林国家合作。正所谓“敌人的敌人就是朋友”。但是在以色列国内外的批评家也担心这会让以色列遭受伊斯兰恐怖组织的严重威胁。
所以尽管国际上因为中东问题导致的恐怖主义已经升级，美国的反阿萨德运动仍在继续。而阿萨德政权一旦被伊斯兰教极端政治力量推翻，恐怖主义也将会进一步抬头。
土耳其政府的新奥斯曼扩张政策并不被反对派政党所支持。事实上，这些政党对于该国现在的外交和对中东地区的干预政策的批评愈演愈烈。这些政党对于极端伊斯兰教的政治暗流和恐怖主义感到忧虑。
传统上，世俗主义是土耳其共和国政治的核心。这一传统始于一战后引领土耳其走向现代化的伟大领袖凯末尔·阿塔土克。
现在土耳其的政治局势反映了现在执政党采取的日益倾向于伊斯兰政治色彩的政策。安卡拉的这一外交政策的后果很明显，新奥斯曼主义的地区扩张主义是与挺伊斯兰运动的政策相辅相成的。
土耳其现在的外交政策定位已经得到了海湾封建国家，特别是沙特阿拉伯的强力支持。因此，一个多方共同谋划的叙利亚政权更迭计划在这些年的发酵也就不奇怪了。
正如之前我们提到的，这一多方协调参与的政策受到美国的鼓励，并成为小布什政府以来美国外交政策的关键一环。
海湾地区及战略
沙特阿拉伯长期以来的外交政策就是要确立在黎凡特地区（现在的东地中海地区）的主导地位，并且利用其伊斯兰原教旨主义的意识形态和其石油财富来全球投放影响力。
在中东，以开罗、大马士革和巴格达为核心的政治对立是一直都存在的。然而自从二战以来，沙特的石油财富使其能够提升其在地区的权力和影响力。
尽管开罗、大马士革和巴格达是传统阿拉伯的政治中心，在一战之后兴起的新的沙特阿拉伯王国试图利用其对于麦加和麦地那的掌控来增加自己的影响力。麦加、麦地那与耶路撒冷一起是伊斯兰教的3大圣城。
沙特当时的目标对于英国有利，因此英帝国支持了沙特在阿拉伯半岛上的诉求。而沙特这些诉求中就包括从哈希姆家族夺取麦加，而英国在这一区域的外交政策也因此被迫调整。
这一新的情况迫使哈希姆家族放弃了麦加，但是英国人为他们让路使得他们成为了新建立的约旦和伊拉克王国的统治者。约旦和伊拉克当时都是从旧的奥斯曼帝国分割而来。哈希姆家族至今仍然是约旦的统治者，但是伊拉克的皇室早在半个世纪之前就被推翻了，伊拉克由此成为了一个世俗的共和国。
于此同时，早在20世纪30年代，阿里·沙特家族，也就是沙特阿拉伯的皇室，就与伊斯兰原教旨主义的组织，包括埃及的穆斯林兄弟会建立了同盟关系。穆斯林兄弟会在很多中东地区，包括叙利亚和巴勒斯坦，都有分支。
在冷战期间，沙特在西方眼里是其反对前苏联的坚定盟友。因为沙特奉行伊斯兰原教旨主义的意识形态，西方列强利用沙特来抗衡莫斯科的政治和意识形态扩张。
西方的策略是利用沙特的原教旨主义的文化和瓦哈比教派信仰的影响来渗透到不同的伊斯兰国家，以抵制共产主义意识形态和政治影响的扩张。
这种利用伊斯兰教原教旨主义运动的做法最先被19世纪的英国和法国采用。当时这些西方强国的特务机关就秘密与原教旨主义的组织合作。
因此进入到20世纪，沙特能够在西方帮助下逐渐将其宗教影响扩张到整个中东区域，并且毫无意外地成为了在全球冷战背景下成为西方的一大前沿阵地。西方资本主义一直鼓励沙特宣扬他的原教旨主义的瓦哈比派伊斯兰教来对抗共产主义。
今天，沙特也理所应当地成为叙利亚内战中最显赫的金主。沙特的地区策略将会随着叙利亚世俗化政府的倒台而向前一大步，这一策略也将随着与沙特王室关联的原教旨主义信徒占据叙利亚而大获成功。
叙利亚的世俗政府及其宪法保护其国境内的多个少数民族，包括基督徒，也保护着温和的逊尼派穆斯林。正因为叙利亚境内民族的多样性，因此一个世俗的共和国政府被看作是对大多数叙利亚人最好的选择。
叙利亚在沙特阿拉伯和海湾国家看来仍然是一个威胁。首先，叙利亚是一个共和国而不是一个封建君主政权。其次，叙利亚是一个世俗国家而不是一个伊斯兰原教旨主义国家。第三，叙利亚是伊朗的盟友，而伊朗是一个什叶派穆斯林国家而不是逊尼派穆斯林国家。
西方的政策意在对抗伊朗，抑制其地区影响力，同时支持其地区盟友沙特阿拉伯的扩张。
二战以后，美国和西方国家需要利用沙特阿拉伯的原油。但是现在的情况已经不比以往，全球的碳氢化合物能源的来源地已经多样化。北美的能源资源，比如煤炭和天然气，也非常丰富。
沙特原油生产的大部分都是在其东部省份。这个地区在历史上与占沙特人口主体的逊尼派穆斯林并无关联，因为什叶派穆斯林在这个地区人口中占主导地位。
在沙特的邻国巴林，什叶派穆斯林也占据人口的主导地位，但他们却被一个与沙特王室关联的逊尼派政权所统治。美国在巴林也有一个重要军事基地。
所以不难看到在这个地区战略问题与宗教分歧相互重叠。这一局势随着沙特与也门之间的战争而加剧。在这场战争中，沙特支持了当地的逊尼派宗教部落来镇压反抗的非逊尼派部落。
所以阿拉伯半岛和海湾地区正受到不稳定因素的威胁，而在叙利亚和伊朗的反恐战争同时也在进一步升级。
一场新的克里米亚战争
西方针对俄罗斯的新冷战主要集中在黑海、地中海区域以及中东。这场地缘政治大戏让很多人觉得是19世纪的克里米亚战争的翻版。在克里米亚战争中，英、法以及奥斯曼帝国与俄罗斯进行了直接冲突。在这场危机之前，中东问题也为各方提供了托辞。
在19世纪，英国和俄罗斯帝国在亚洲的对立和冲突也被称为“大博弈”。英国的政策是支持奥斯曼帝国对抗俄罗斯帝国，现在看来一切并未改变。
现在西方在乌克兰制造了政变，从四面和黑海威胁俄罗饿。这一开局策略之后紧接着是西方在波罗的海和中亚发起针对俄罗斯的行动。
因为乌克兰紧邻黑海，这也为西方国家从西侧包围俄罗斯提供了区间。莫斯科对乌克兰政变的反制措施是把克里米亚重新收入自己怀抱。这一举措也保护了俄罗斯在这一地区的侧翼，强化了对于黑海的控制。
一些分析家警告称此次俄罗斯与土耳其紧张局势的急剧升级可能会成为地区甚至全球战争的导火索。土耳其是否要挑动俄罗斯发动战争呢？在形势几乎剑拔弩张的时候很多人都在问这个问题。
此次土耳其击落正在打击“伊斯兰国”的俄罗斯战机事件将会成为短期内无法解决的一个主要问题。美国五角大楼的相关人士已经认可了俄罗斯的声明，也就是俄罗斯战机被击落时是处于叙利亚的领空。获救的俄罗斯飞行员则表示土耳其战机在击落其飞机之前既没有通过无线电也没有通过视觉信号发出过警告。
一些美国的批评者甚至称此次击落俄罗斯战机的时间是美国与土耳其共同提前谋划的。尽管这一声音被很多人认为是危言耸听，这样的情况也不是完全没可能，尤其是鉴于白宫遏制俄罗斯和叙利亚的意图早已昭然若揭。
有一个问题是一旦冲突升级北约会怎么做？北约会允许其成员国土耳其把欧洲拉入另外一场克里米亚战争吗？北约会允许美国把他们拉入与俄罗斯的直接冲突吗？
华盛顿将继续有缺陷的政策
当然，理性的声音肯定是要把局势缓和避免战争。但是今天的华盛顿已经远非理性。自从小布什政府以来，华盛顿的政客已经陷入了战争狂热，极端鹰派的议员约翰·麦凯恩就是例证。
西方政策的批评者想知道是否一些高层决策者想要看到战争的爆发。他们认为，因为欧洲和美国的经济一直萎靡不振，一场战争或许可以提振经济。
这又是一个不理性的想法，但是从华盛顿政客的言论和白宫的行动来看他们可能确有这样的想法。
看起来现在反俄最踊跃是英国，可能是因为其帝国传统以及19世纪政策传统的延续。小布什和奥巴马政府历来都是与英国紧密合作，并受到英国鹰派政客包括托尼·布莱尔和大卫·卡梅伦的影响。法国则历来唯英国和美国马首是瞻。
大部分分析人士认为，未来美国在俄罗斯和中东问题上战略发生重大转变的可能性不大。美国的反俄政策仍将持续一段时间，而反阿萨德政权的政策也将延续。
即便是在2016年大选之后新一届的政府2017年掌权，美国的外交政策导向变化的可能性也不大。评论家认为不论哪个党入住白宫或者掌控国会，美国外交界的上层仍然将会保持这一政策。当然美国国内确实有反对现有外交政策的声音，但是这些声音的力量还不足以改变现有政策。（翻译：徐巍）
英文原文
World Tensions Increase as Year Ends
By Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe
Aswe head into the end of the year, world tensions are increasing. Washington’s new Cold War against Russiacombined with the destabilization of the Middle East by the US does not bodewell for the approaching New Year.
Inrecent weeks, international tensions have increased particularly owing to thechaotic situation in the Middle East and the spread of internationalterrorism. The recent Paris bombingsshould have taken no one by surprise given the commitment to global terrorismof ISIS, al Qaeda, and their various affiliates. Asia has not been unaffected as the terroristbombing in Thailand by Uyghur extremists shows.
Russia’sstaunch support for Syria and its people and its unrelenting operations againstISIS are bearing fruit. ISIS has beendealt serious blows by Russian airpower and by the ground operations of theSyrian army joined by its Iranian partner and by Hizbullah.
Thedowning of the civilian Russian aircraft over Egypt and the Turkish downing ofa Russian jet over Syria have escalated the battle against the ISIS terroristsand their allies. It is no secret thatthe key supporters of ISIS are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar as even the vicepresident of the United States, Joe Biden, has pointed out.
White House Continues Anti-Assad Crusade
Strangely,however, the White House has not been deflected in its support of theanti-Assad forces in Syria despite the well known fact that these forces havelinks to ISIS and to al Qaeda. In fact,the White House continues to call for the overthrow of the Assad government andcontinues to support these forces.
Thebasic explanation for this is that the Obama Administration is continuing themain lines of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Regime change policy for the Middle East hasnot been changed in Washington yet. Sothe overthrow of Assad in Syria is seen by the dominant US foreign policy eliteas an essential and logical step after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraqand Muamar Qaddafi in Libya.
BecauseSyria and the Lebanese Hizbullah organization are seen as allies of Iran,Washington seeks to weaken them. Onestrategic objective is to prevent Iran from having access to the MediterraneanSea via Syria.
Policyin the Middle East necessarily involves the Arab states, Turkey, Iran, andIsrael. The task for the US or othermajor powers is to achieve a proper balance in the region while recognizing thedynamic nature of the region and the various uncertainties and surprisesawaiting anyone dealing with the area.
During the George W. Bush administration,vice president Dick Cheney and his national security staff dominated presidentBush’s thinking. Even the senior GeorgeH. W. Bush in his new memoirs publicly points to the bad influence of Cheneyand his hawkish advisors on his son George W. Bush.
Thestrategic concept for the Middle East developed by vice president Cheney andhis neoconservative advisors was never a secret. The concept was to group the Arab states andIsrael against Iran and its allies Syria and Hizbullah.
Turkey’s Expansionist Policy
Turkey being a NATO ally was expected tosupport this concept. Given thepro-Islamist policies of the Erdogan government and its anti-Assad activity,Turkey is in fact supporting this concept. But the Turkish concept is a much larger one that some experts call“Neo-Ottomanism.” Experts say thatTurkey wishes to play an influential role such as the old Ottoman Empire playedin the Middle East and beyond.
The Turkish Neo-Ottoman vision is largerthan the Middle East and extends into Central Asia and beyond wherever thereare “Turkic” people. Of course, theTurks who conquered the Anatolian Peninsula a thousand years ago werethemselves from Central Asia originally. So it is not surprising that the Neo-Ottoman vision looks very fareastward even into China’s Xinjiang province.
Turkey receives massive financial investmentsfrom the Gulf Arab states and thus these feudal regimes based on the Sunni branchof Islam are positioned to work with Turkey as another Sunni power to overthrowthe secular Assad government, to confront Iran which is Shia, and to undermineHizbullah which is a Shia force in Lebanon.
Because Israel considers Iran and itsallies Syria and Hizbullah to be the biggest threat, it is willing to work withMuslim governments opposed to them. Thisis playing the game of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” so to speak. But critics in Israel and elsewhere areconcerned that this policy may result in serious threats to Israel fromIslamist terrorist organizations.
So Washington’s anti-Assad crusadecontinues despite the intensification of international terrorism linked to theMiddle East and the prospects for vastly increased terrorism should the Assadgovernment be overthrown by radical Islamic political forces.
The Turkish government’s Neo-Ottomanexpansionist policy is not supported by opposition political parties. In fact, such parties are highly critical ofthe present foreign policy and intervention in the region. These parties are concerned about the rise ofextremist Islamist political currents and terrorism.
Traditionally, secularism has been centralto the Turkish Republic’s politics. Thistradition started with the great leader Kemal Attaturk who guided themodernization of Turkey after World War I. His policies rejected religious extremism and emphasized a secular stateas the foundation for modernization.
The present political situation in Turkeyreflects the rise of Islamist politics which the ruling party embraces. The consequences for Ankara’s foreign policyare clear enough and involve the Neo-Ottoman concept of regional expansionismcoupled with pro-Islamist policies.
This orientation of Turkey has attractedthe strong support of the feudal regimes in the Gulf States, particularly SaudiArabia. Thus, it is not surprising thata coordinated policy for regime change in Syria has developed in recent years.
This coordinated policy is encouraged bythe United States and has been a key component of US policy since the George W.Bush administration as noted earlier.
Then Gulf Region and Strategy
Saudi Arabia’s longstanding internationalpolicy is aimed at domination of the Levant and at the projection of powerglobally using its fundamentalist Islamic ideology and its financial resources.
Inthe Middle East, rivalry between Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad istraditional. Since World War II,however, Saudi oil wealth has enabled it to promote its own regional schemesfor power and influence.
AlthoughCairo, Damascus, and Baghdad have been traditional centers of Arab politics,the new state of Saudi Arabia emerging during the World War I era sought to useits hold over Mecca and Medina to gain legitimacy and influence. Mecca and Medina are two key cities in Islamtogether with Jerusalem.
Saudiobjectives were favorable to British interests and so the British empiresupported the claims of the House of Saud in the Arabian peninsula. Because these claims included seizing Mecca fromthe Hashemite family control British policy for the region had to be adjusted.
Thenew situation then displaced the Hashemite family from Mecca but the Britishmade way for them to become kings of the newly created states of Jordan andIraq which were carved out of the former Ottoman empire. The family remains on the Jordanian thronebut the royal government in Iraq was overthrown over a half century ago andIraq became a secular republic.
Meanwhile,as early as the 1930s, the House of Saud made alliances with fundamentalistIslamist organizations such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The brotherhood had branches in variousMiddle Eastern areas such as Syria and Palestine.
Duringthe Cold War, Riyadh was seen as a staunch ally against the former SovietUnion. Given its fundamentalistreligious ideology, Western powers used Saudi Arabia to counter political andideological influence from Moscow.
Westernstrategy was to use the fundamentalist religious culture of Saudi Arabia andits Wahhabi religious cult as a method to penetrate and influence variousIslamic areas and thus to prevent the spread of Communist ideology andpolitical influence.
Thisuse of fundamentalist Islamic religious movements was developed in the 19thcentury by the British and French empires. The secret services of these Western powers worked with selectedfundamentalist groups behind the scenes.
Soit was no surprise in the twentieth century that, with Western blessing, Riyadhstepped up its religious penetration of the region and also established ColdWar front operations on a global basis. Western capitals encouraged Saudi Arabia’s promotion of itsfundamentalist Wahhabi brand of Islam to fight against communism.
Today, Riyadh is understandably the mostprominent backer of the regime change war in Syria. Saudi Arabia’s regional strategy would begreatly advanced by the downfall of secular government in Syria and by theeventual domination of Syria by fundamentalists linked to the Saudi monarchy.
Syria’s secular government and constitutionprotects the various religious minorities in the country which includeChristians. It also protects moderateSunni Muslims. Because Syria has adiverse population with religious minorities, a secular republican form ofgovernment is seen best by most Syrians.
Syria in the eyes of Saudi Arabia and GulfStates poses a challenge. First, Syriais a republic and not a feudal monarchy. Second, Syria is a secular state and not an Islamic fundamentaliststate. Third, Syria is an ally of Iranwhich is a republic and also a Shia Muslim state and not a Sunni Muslim state.
Westernpolicy aims at confronting Iran and countering its regional influence and atthe same time supports the aggrandizement of the Saudi regime as a regionalally.
AfterWorld War II, the United States and Western countries needed Saudi Arabia’soil. But this is less the case today ashydrocarbons come from diverse global sources. North American energy resources such as coaland natural gas are plentiful.
Thebulk of Saudi Arabian oil production is in its Eastern Province. This area traditionally is distinct from theSaudi Sunni religious majority bcause the Shia population dominates this keyarea.
The Shia community in next door Bahrain isthe majority community there in terms of religion but is ruled by a Sunniregime linked to the Saudi monarchy. TheUS has a major naval facility in Bahrain.
Soit is easy to see that there are significant strategic issues overlappingreligious divisions in the area. Thissituation has been exacerbated by the Saudi war against Yemen. In this war, Riyadh supports the Sunnireligious tribes against the non-Sunni tribes which have been in revolt.
Sothe Arabian Peninsula and Gulf Region are threatened by instability at a timewhen the anti-terrorist war in Syria and Iran has intensified.
A New Crimean War?
Thenew western Cold War against Russia focuses on the Black Sea region, theMediterranean region, and the Middle East. The resemblance of this geopolitical came to nineteenth century imperialconflict causes some to raise the issue of a repeat of the Crimean War whichpitted the British, French, and Ottoman empires against Russia in a crisis inwhich the Middle East provided a pretext.
Inthe nineteenth century, the rivalry and conflict between the British and theRussian empire in Asia was called “The Great Game.” British policy was to back the Ottoman empireagainst the Russian empire. Little seemsto have changed.
Todaywe see western forward policy creating a regime change by coup d’etat inUkraine threatening Russia from the western flank and Black Sea. This opening gambit has been followed up bywestern moves in the Baltic region aimed against Russia and by moves in centralEurope.
BecauseUkraine borders the Black Sea it provides another flank for western countriesagainst Russia. Moscow countered thewestern coup in Ukraine by bringing Crimea back into the Russian fold. This move protects Russia’s flank in thisregion and strengthens its Black Sea presence.
Thesharp increase in tensions between Turkey and Russia could provide the sparkfor a regional and perhaps global war, some analysts warn. Is Turkey trying to provoke Russia into awar? Many are asking this question asthe regional situation is already on a razor’s edge.
TheTurkish shooting down of a Russian aircraft making strikes against ISIS is amajor issue which will not be resolved soon. Pentagon sources have already admitted the Russian aircraft was overSyrian airspace as Russia has claimed. The rescued crew member of the aircraft has stated that there was nowarning by the Turkish aircraft either by radio or by visual signaling.
Somecritics of Washington have gone so far as to say that the attack on the Russianaircraft was preplanned by the US and Turkey. While this may taken as alarmist by some, such a scenario is not to bediscounted given the White House’s apparent strategic obsession against Russiaand against Syria.
Onequestion is what will NATO do should tensions escalate? Will NATO allow its member Turkey to dragEurope into another Crimean War? WillNATO allow the United States to railroad it into conflict with Russia?
Washington to Continue Flawed Policies
Of course, a rational person would want thesituation calmed down and war avoided. But today’s Washington is far fromrational. Since the George W. Bushadministration, Washington’s politicians have been driven by war fever asexemplified by the ultra-hawkish Senator John McCain.
Criticsof Western policy wonder whether some decision makers want to see war breakout. They argue that because the Westerneconomies in Europe and in the United States are in such bad shape war might beseen as a way to jump start these economies.
Again,this is not a rational perspective but consider the rhetoric of Washingtonpoliticians and also the actions of the White House.
Itappears that the most anti-Russian posture has been adopted by the UnitedKingdom perhaps owing to its imperial tradition and the legacy of itsnineteenth century policies. The WhiteHouse under George W. Bush and Barack Obama have coordinated closely withLondon and have been influenced by hawkish British politicians such as TonyBlair and David Cameron. France hasfollowed the British and US lead.
Prospectsfor a major change in US policy with regard to Russia or to the Middle East areremote most analysts agree. The mainlines of the policy will remain anti-Russian for some time to come while theanti-Assad policy will likely also remain in place.
This US policy orientation may not change even with a new administration coming topower in 2017 after the 2016 elections in the US. Critics say that the dominant US foreignpolicy elite will maintain the policy irrespective of which political party iselected to the White House or gains Congress. There are certainly vocal opponents of Washington’s foreign policy butthey are not yet sufficiently powerful to alter policy.