Americans go to their presidential elections and they take the world with them. This has nothing to do with supporting or hating America. It is the feeling that whichever man stays in the White House can influence the fates of states and nations. When the US drowns in the campaign of awaiting its new president, the world too reclines to a state of waiting. It is true that the policies of the consecutive American administrations are governed by America's higher interests, but it is also true that the wide powers of the president allow him to change, even when it comes to priorities.

Waiting for the American president is a universal state. It applies to Russia and China, and even to Europe which has been bothered by a few of George Bush's stunts, especially in Iraq. The approach of the new president to the pending problems of the world concerns all parties directly involved in those problems just as it concerns those who will be influenced by the type of recommended resolutions. It may be relevant to refer in this respect to the ongoing negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear file.

Waiting is even more difficult in the regions that witness direct American involvement in their affairs, concerns and conflicts. The same applies to the regions where the US has vital interests that impact its economic stability, the Middle East being a case in point: the US engages in combat on its territories and is directly concerned with oil security, Israel's security and everything that influences them.

Iran is in a state of waiting too, even if it pretends otherwise. Its nuclear issue is in the hands of the Security Council and remains a fixture in American-European meetings. It is difficult to believe that the next president, whether Obama or McCain, will concede to Iran's right to possess a nuclear weapon. The question will be whether Iran will be willing to control its nuclear appetite in return for recognition of its prominent role in the region. Carrying through with the confrontation or shifting to negotiations will not depend on Washington alone. This will also depend on Iran's nuclear and regional behavior and its rhetoric in addressing the new administration.

Iraq, whose territories host American troops, is also in a state of waiting, even if it concludes an agreement with Washington, one that regulates the presence of US troops on Iraqi soil upon the expiry of the international mandate by the end of the year. Iraq's state of waiting has multiple concerns. It is a wait for the next American president and for the form of Iranian-American relations during his term.

Evidently, Syria too is in a state of waiting. It has noticed that the Bush administration is trying to create realities that will complicate any efforts by the new administration to initiate dialogue with Damascus. In response, Syria attempted to create incentives to encourage the new administration to initiate dialogue. Damascus revealed the indirect negotiations with Israel through the Turkish channel. Syrian President Bashar Assad declared that any subsequent direct negotiations would require an American broker. Syria sent another message to Paris and Washington together. It facilitated the election of General Michel Suleiman as president to the Lebanese Republic. In light of this, Assad received two of President Sarkozy's delegates and will be attending the French national celebrations. As part of repositioning itself, Syria has agreed to receiving inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who wish to verify the nature of the location targeted by the Israeli bombing and labeled by Israel and the US as nuclear.

The Palestinians too are in a state of waiting. The last dialogue initiative falls in this context. It is an overly modest attempt to explore the possibility of revoking the complete divorce within the Palestinian house and seeking protection from any possible adventure that Israel may resort to in an effort to utilize the American electoral paralysis to mount a wide-scale operation against Gaza.

Lebanon in turn is in a state of waiting. It is no secret that its stability in the next stage will depend on the nature of relations between the next US Administration on the one hand and Iran and Syria on the other. Fortunately, Lebanon waits after having elected a president. The wait will be easier if the gluttony for ministerial posts is reduced to facilitate the formation of a national unity government that can bring the evident sectarian division under control.

It is a mandatory waiting period. When the Americans go to elect their president, they take the world with them. The best that Arabs can do at this point is to wait under the ceiling of dialogue, control their damages, and avoid the policy of risk-taking which seeks to impose a hasty status quo and leads to a clash with the international will.