For those keeping up with international news, the world seems be slipping into dangerous chaos. The current geopolitical landscape feels incredibly unstable, especially in the Middle East. Part of this may be media-driven hysteria, but many experts agree: it’s bad.

At a Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs panel on Oct. 13 on the emerging Iran Deal, Professor Yuksel Sezgin, director of Syracuse University’s Middle Eastern studies program, said the region in particular is “worse than it has been in decades.”

The inability of Western powers like the U.S. to contain the crisis in the Middle East has become a focal point for broader national anxiety—the creeping sense that the book has closed on the American century.

As Russia and China rear their heads once again, and regional powers like Iran become more influential, global power has shifted. The issue of a resurgent Russia entered headlines again when Russian bombs began falling in Syria earlier this month as part of a military buildup, further entangling the region in a web of alliances.

In this atmosphere of fear and confusion, foreign policy is a defining issue for 2016 presidential candidates.

The woman that political pundits have deemed most likely to become the 45th president, Hillary Clinton, seems to have staggering foreign policy experience at first glance — she has served as both Obama’s secretary of state and First Lady.

But that strength is only convincing on the surface. Clinton avoided decisive action on various geopolitical issues during her time in office, possibly because she didn’t want to risk her presidential chances in 2016.

Instead, she may have used the position to put together such international triumphs as the 2009-2013 Russian takeover of the Canadian mining industry, which “brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain,” as reported by The New York Times — in exchange for generous donations to the Clinton Foundation, of course.

Still, she’s displayed hawkish positions in the past, especially with regard to the Middle East, and there’s serious potential she could bring that kind of irresponsible aggression to the area.

Clinton’s main challenger from the left has appeared to be at a disadvantage on issues of foreign policy, but Bernie Sanders’ anti-war rhetoric could serve to redefine the global conversation again.

Sanders isn’t enough of an isolationist to leave Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan civilians at the mercy of madmen, but he’s cautioned against the escalation hinted by the Obama administration and Clinton’s platform.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans seems intent on living out their childhood Reagan fantasies, dominating dictators and militants alike with bravado and escalation. That may actually be effective in checking China and strongmen like Vladimir Putin.

But such bullishness would likely aggravate the Middle Eastern crisis in a tragic way, repeating recent history.

Strangely enough, the most compelling Republican candidate on foreign policy has been Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who appeared strong on the topic last debate.

However, if the Rubio campaign can’t mobilize soon, he may not even make it to all the debates, let alone the Republican National Convention.

Here’s a disclaimer to leave you with: in this technocratic and expert-driven age, where the deeply entrenched military-industrial complex seem to control foreign policy more than politicians — are any of these 2016 platforms all that important?

Our “deep state” may have us locked into seemingly inevitable courses of action. Until that first post-election security briefing, it’s impossible to truly tell exactly what direction the next commander in chief will steer the country.

Thomas Beckley-Forest is a sophomore newspaper and online journalism major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at tjbeckle@syr.edu.

Published on October 20, 2015 at 12:34 am