By Mirella Hodeib

It is election year in the United States and offering views on global hot topics becomes a risky business, officials and pundits here in Washington concur. Unemployment and contraception, rather than the humanitarian situation in Syria’s battered neighborhood of Baba Amr, currently dominate political debate in the U.S., which will hold its 57th presidential election in November.
 
But the race for the presidency and what it is referred to here as “war fatigue” felt among the American population following the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are not the only two factors standing behind the nebulous policy recently put foward by the U.S. vis-à-vis events in the Middle East, particularly the almost 1-year-old turmoil in Syria.
 
According to U.S. officials, candidates running for office try to move away from “uncertain situations,” which is exactly the case of Syria now.
 
These officials, and also researchers at think tanks, which to some extent influence the shaping of the U.S.’s convoluted foreign policies, argue that one of the key reasons behind America’s cautious stance toward events in Syria is the lack of unity and effectiveness shown by the Syrian opposition, which can’t seem to agree on a unified future vision for their country.
 
In Washington, there is a strong belief that Syria is a powder keg and that, contrary to the situation in Libya, rebels and rifles won’t do the job. “In Syria, you can’t do it from the air, you have to do from the ground,” a U.S.-based expert on the Middle East, who wished to remain anonymous, said.
 
The makers of U.S. foreign policy are convinced that the incumbent Syrian administration is significantly weakened and will never regain its pre-turmoil influence and status, but they highlight the fact that events in Syria are a game changer for the Middle East.
 
Therefore, at least for the time being, the general mood in Washington is that the U.S. is nowhere near engaging in a military intervention against Syria, or arming the opposition. It is also out of question for the U.S. to endorse demands to establish humanitarian safe zones, because this would require military intervention in one form or the other.
 
Among the options Washington is still examining, however, is a plan to launch airstrikes against specific targets in Syria, similar to those conducted by the U.S. in Pakistan, so as to limit collateral damage as much as possible.
 
It goes without saying that due to the highly blurry circumstances in the Arab world, Lebanon figures low on the priority list of the U.S., for the time being at least.
 
Yet, U.S. officials don’t hide their surprise at how calm the situation has been in Lebanon ever since the uprising in Syria erupted in March 2011. They also say that the Lebanese government deserves the credit as it has done a “satisfactory job” of keeping things under control despite the fact that on the other side of the border, the turmoil is taking an increasingly sectarian turn.
 
The officials say that the U.S. administration is not naive when it comes to recognizing that Lebanon is facing a number of flash points. They add that as the turmoil in Syria gets worse, there will come a time when things in Lebanon will become difficult, in terms of the flow of refugees and the economic situation.
 
The notorious policy of “disassociation” that the Lebanese Cabinet has so dearly embraced since the start of the uprising next door doesn’t seem to make sense to U.S. officials, who hope that Lebanon will not move further away from the so-called Arab consensus.
 
For the time being, according to a U.S. diplomatic source, all factions in Lebanon are in a wait and see mode, looking east in the direction of Syria. The source adds that no politician wants to be on the wrong side of history, and that “no one is looking to rock the boat,” as he put it.