The Upcoming US Presidential Election; The Impact on Muslim world – By Shaikhul Islam Imran

International, Issue

The US presidential election, generally, gets much importance in respect of various reasons, since the country has the most economic, military and political influence and dominance over the countries of the world. Specially, the United States has been maintaining various relations with the Muslim world as a partner of trade, security and intelligence. The United States is also the biggest consumer of the natural resources of the Middle East. So, the policies towards the Muslim world, taken by the candidates as election proposal, draw attention to the commentators, political analysts and the voters which play a crucial role even in the election result. After 9/11, the Muslim world has become a central issue of the US political arena. The upcoming 2016 US presidential election is going to be held in such a crucial time when the world is facing some severe problems as the rise of IS or Daesh terrorists, Syrian crisis, Palestinian issues, refugee crisis. The time is to analyze the situation which the world will face in future if Donald Trump, the person who is hot talk for his aggressive attitude towards Muslim world, can defeat the democrat candidate. It inevitably comes to the attention when the nuclear deal of Iran with the world major powers has lost many interests of Israel which degraded the relationship of Israelis with the Obama administration and much concentration is being paid on this issue from both the Democratic and the Republican party but the Democrat Hillary Clinton did not oppose it rather gave a five part strategy and said about the nuclear deal as a “distrust but verify” and the Republican candidate Donald  Trump refused it and argued for a better deal.


Along with the other issues, Islamophobia is dangerously subsisting in the campaign and the GOP candidate Donald Trump is doing better the job as he has called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. In the release making that call, Trump cited a biased and unscientific poll conducted by Islamophobe Frank Gaffney’s center for security policy. In his first campaign ad for television, Trump “continued the call for a ban on Muslims” entering the US. Trump called he would “shutdown” mosques, if he elected president and falsely claimed that he saw a video of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11. Trump proposed that US abandon the Geneva Convention and kill the families of terrorists.

The Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton criticized these Islamofobic speeches as she called Donald’s suggestion of a national database of Muslims “shocking rhetoric” that should be “denounced by all”. “Islam is not our adversary” said Clinton. In April 2011, at the annual US-Islamic world forum, then secretary of state Clinton said “I am proud that this year we are recognizing the contributions of the millions of American Muslims who do so much to take this country strong”.

The Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton seems to be a fair position on the Muslim issues and the Muslim community of the US feels more reliable to Hillary than to Donald Trump. A report published by the CAIR (Council On American-Islamic Relations) shows that the Muslim voters of the US, supporting the Democratic party, are more concern about Islam phobia than that of other issues and the Muslim voters of the Republican party are more concern about the economic issues but the number of Muslim Republican voters are only 18 percent and the rest are the Muslim Democrat voters. It is much clear that Mr. Trump has honed in on cultivating Islam phobia as a sound strategy for drumming up for his base and that is why American Muslims are not interested with his policy.


There is no different position about the security and interest of Israel between the Democrat and Republican candidates as Hillary Clinton supports a strong and robust alliance with Israel, as well as a two-state solution. She said she would invite the Israeli Prime Minister to the White House during the first month of her presidency to recommit to their alliance. She would commit to Israel’s security by providing with various defense supports. Trump has voiced strong support for Israel as a military and economic partner. He supports a close alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has not been clear about his views on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He is also supportive of Israeli unilateral action against Iran.

 Resolving the Palestinian crisis is the crying need for this time but this is going to be uncontrolled as the US is always reluctant about the occupation of Palestinian land and very recently, the carry plan did not come true. Israel is running its occupation but if it continues, the two state solution would fail but it seems from the candidate’s approach that the Palestinian freedom is not going to be achieved and candidates also did not draw any work plan to go further step.

Clinton has a five-part strategy in dealing with Iran: 1) deepen the United States’ commitment to Israeli security through defense support, specifically for tunnel detection and missile defense; 2) reaffirm that the Gulf region is a vital American interest through a robust military presence, keeping open the Strait of Hormuz, and increasing security cooperation with the GCC; 3) counter Iranian proxies in other nations and engage states like Turkey and Qatar to crack down on support; 4) stand against Iran’s human rights violations; and 5) work with Arab nations to create a comprehensive regional strategy.. She has said she will use additional sanctions or military force if necessary to enforce the deal.

Trump opposes the Iran nuclear deal and argues he could negotiate a better deal. He states that he would stop the Iranian nuclear program “by whatever means necessary.” Trump also supports an increase in economic sanctions, presumably above the pre-deal baseline.

Clinton offers a three-part strategy to deal with IS. The first part involves defeating IS in Iraq and Syria through an intelligence surge; an increase in coalition air strikes; and a ground campaign supported by U.S. Special Forces, spearheaded by Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds, and involving European partners and Arab neighbors. The second part focuses on cutting off IS financing and networking. The third part focuses on defenses at home, limiting the ability of IS to penetrate U.S. borders or recruit within them. Republican Trump is reluctant about direct intervention in defeating IS rather he is comfortable letting Russia fight IS. He stated there was no need for U.S. intervention and that the United States could simply “pick up the remnants” after Russia defeated IS.


Islamic State does not bring any security threat to the US, even the interests in the Middle East rather the organization is destabilizing Iraq and Syria mainly and in those countries, Iranian influence is increasing day by day as the two states are big partner of Iranian trade, business and security also, which is contradictory to US policy to increase the Iranian influence over the Middle East. Political commotion has made the Middle East states dependent on the US and the terrorists of IS and Daesh make the path easier.

Dealing with Syria and refugees, Clinton supports a no-fly zone over northern Syria, near the Turkish border, and the creation of safe zones for refugees as places for them to remain in Syria, while being protected from both IS and Assad’s regime. She would engage the Arab world to help support those safe zones. Additionally, Clinton supports the United States taking in tens of thousands of refugees, as well as pushing both European and Arab nation allies to take additional refugees.

Donald Trump opposes no-fly zones in Syria, but supports establishing safe-zones. Trump says he would prevent refugees from entering the United States and argues that until the U.S. immigration system can improve screening processes, he would ban all Muslims from entering as well.

Toppling Basher Al Assad is much more crucial to the US led coalition for protecting the interests of Israel because Syria – Iran posse historic relations along with Russia and this coalition make the Hezbollah (a Lebanese organization) stronger which has created a severe threat to the Israeli security.  Basher Al Assad always is contradictory to the US-Israeli interests and also Syria is constantly passing financial aid and military supports to Hezbollah by using its border as a joint strategy of Syria and Iran. Very recently, wiki leaks have released an email from US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton detailing ways Israel could marginalize Iran by overthrowing Assad in Syria. Another report (al akhbar) says that The Israeli regime is seeking to launch a new war on Lebanon in the wake of Saudi Arabia’s recent decision to cut its multi-billion-dollar aid to the Lebanese army. So, the present political instability is to secure the US-Israeli interests in the Middle East and more than that.

The Muslim world is constantly losing its power by the direct interference of the westerns. Whatever policies taken by the US would only for their own interests even a highly casualty can emerge as the millions of Afghan and Iraqi people died by the US invasion. Covetous Muslim leaders are now keen for the power only but their identity is now under threat, their resources is being consummated by the aliens and their own people are dying. Islamic knowledge has detached from the Muslims and that is why they are being exploited. US foreign policy does not lead the Muslim world to the right path rather the Muslims can resolve their own problems.