"A BURNT CHILD DREADS THE FIRE"

The process of nominating candidates for the US presidency is on the home stretch, and experts now unanimously predict that the main struggle for the White House will be between the current president, Democrat Barack Obama, and Republican Mitt Romney. For the time being, Obama is ahead of his nominal competitor, but analysts do not rule out that the situation may change in favour of Romney.

In matters of foreign policy, the Republican senator demonstrates a more assertive stance, as evidenced by his election slogan: "Restore the dignity of America!" Romney has also named the "main geopolitical enemy" of the US - he believes it is Russia, with which the Obama administration has initiated a process of "resetting" relations. What can be further US policy towards the South Caucasus, Iran and the Arab world? We will talk about this in our interview with the columnist of the Russian English-language newspaper The Moscow Times, Michael Bohm.

- In light of the global economic crisis and the "Arab spring", many analysts last year predicted a decline in US foreign policy activity in the South Caucasus. Do you think these predictions came true and what are Washington's strategic plans for the South Caucasus region?

- The current US policy pays less attention to the South Caucasus, as opposed to the policies of President George W. Bush. The South Caucasus was part of the Republican president's foreign policy programme for the expansion of democracy. But Barack Obama took the region off the agenda of American policy. This does not mean that the South Caucasus is not important for the United States. It is just that amid the global financial crisis, projects concerning the region do not fit into the overall picture of Barack Obama's foreign policy. In other words, the South Caucasus is not the priority at the moment.

- So, a lot depends on who will be the next US president? By the way, Barack Obama's main rival in the presidential election is likely to be Senator Mitt Romney. What sort of stance on the South Caucasus region can we expect from him?

- It should be noted that Azerbaijan has a sphere, which is always in the spotlight of the strategic interests of US policy regardless of who sits in the presidential chair. This is energy. The economy does not depend on the desires and views of American presidents. Yes, politics and military operations depend on the will of the president. But with regard to the energy sector, the US has clear priorities.

- But in the region, there are threats to US energy interests. These include the situation of neither war nor peace in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Can we expect an increase in the activity of the United States in resolving this problem?

 - Conflict resolution is a diplomatic sphere and an issue of security. The Department of State will not refuse to participate in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Although this is not the biggest priority, it still fits into the overall US foreign policy. Washington supports efforts to resolve conflicts by diplomatic means. In this issue, you can earn points and show yourself as a peacemaker. It is quite possible that in future, the US will be more active in addressing this complex issue.

- The second phase of the Sah Daniz major gas project has been launched in Azerbaijan. The US and the EU linked hopes of implementing the Nabucco pipeline to gas production within this project. But, apparently, this pipeline project has somewhat stalled of late. Will the US continue to lobby for it?

- I think that US support, including political support for Nabucco, will not decrease, because there is a need for alternative energy supply routes. Financial support for Nabucco, as was the case with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, depends on private investors. Another thing is whether there will be enough resources for Nabucco.

- US-Iranian relations are now strained to the limit. How real is the threat that force will be used against our southern neighbour?

- It is very unlikely. The fact is that Iran is not Iraq or Libya. The White House acts on the principle "a burnt child dreads the fire". The United States has already "burned its fingers" in Iraq. With Iran, it will be too difficult. I believe that nothing will happen before the US presidential election. Barack Obama will not resort to a military attack on Iran, although the Republican candidate in the upcoming US presidential election, Mitt Romney, has promised voters to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. But in general, it is very unlikely that any of the current candidates will bomb Iran as president.

- Speaking of Libya. The US supported protests against Muammar Qaddafi and even gave military support to his opponents. However, in all the countries of the "Arab spring", power is gradually falling into the hands of Islamists: Ennahda in Tunisia, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and even the Transitional National Council of Libya consist of former radicals. To what extent does this correspond to the interests of the West?

- There is a saying: "you get a dose of your own medicine." At the beginning of the "Arab spring", no one could predict how it would end. The US always supported Mubarak because he was the lesser of the two evils - the very least. I mean the opposition represented by the Muslim Brotherhood. Even if Mubarak was not a democrat, he was still a secular person. The US supported him all the time so as not to give radical groups a chance to get stronger. But when the people of Egypt rose up, the US could no longer support its old ally, although the fear of radical organizations is still there. But what can you do if millions of people take to the streets? With the onset of unrest, the US had to abandon its forced friendship with Mubarak. There is a revolution, and nothing can be done about it.

- But in the case of Libya, NATO paved the way for the opposition with air strikes. Now power is gradually falling into the hands of the Islamists, who are traditionally unfriendly to the United States and are simply hostile to Israel ...

- Qaddafi was quite a secular man, and like Mubarak, he was friends with the West in his final years. When it comes to choosing someone to support - a secular or religious dictator, the United States usually chooses the secular one. All the "pros" of Qaddafi became "cons" when demonstrations began in Benghazi and other Libyan cities. From a political point of view, it was not appropriate to support a secular dictator.

- In this case, how will the events in Syria develop? Is military intervention by NATO and the Arab League possible like the NATO air strikes in Libya?

- The incumbent Syrian president is running out of time. His departure is a matter of time. Members of the Syrian government are gradually defecting to the opposition. But the most difficult thing will start after the dictator's departure. Libya showed that the most difficult thing begins after the dictator's overthrow when various groups are trying to come to power. The developments in Syria involve different forces, including radical religious groups. Iran is active in Syria. The developments in Syria after the overthrow of the incumbent authorities may follow the Egyptian scenario. As for possible military intervention by the West, President Barack Obama is against such intervention. It is possible that a decision will be made on arms supplies to the opposition. The West has not made such a decision yet, though it is quite possible that the Syrian opposition is receiving weapons in secret ways.