The forthcoming presidential elections in the United States are possibly the most crucial of the last decades. As the presidency of the extremely popular Barack Obama is coming to its end, the presidential candidates are going to extremes. Whilst the Democratic Party is proposing its most “socialist” candidate in years, the Republican Party participates in a festival of xenophobia and bigotry with aggressive international policies outside the United States and dangerous immigration policies inside them. But what if the next U.S. president is a Republican? What would be the implications on the political situation in the Middle East and the Muslims within the U.S.?

The rise of chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in power signaled some major strategic shifts in Egyptian foreign affairs. The main goals which dictate the current government’s foreign policy are domestic stability and regime survival. These targets are best served by Sisi’s anti-Islamist and pro-status quo approach in an era of growing anti-terrorism concerns across the region. In general, Sisi wants to portray his regime to the world and his people as a safe, moderate and reliable island of stability in the midst of turmoil.

The 2015 National Security Strategy states that the United States will face world’s complex challenges with “strategic patience”. As the United States has been stepping back from the Middle East and pivoting to the Far East, the current article examines how the doctrine of strategic patience is exercised in practice, and presents the risks that this policy is running through.

As the United States has been undertaking an air strike campaign in Iraq and Syria for several weeks, the familiar question in US foreign policy debates reappeared: can airpower alone do the job? Wrong questions, though, lead to wrong answers. Too much focus on military means and ways results in the tacticization of strategy and the neglect of the political context. The United States should strive to defeat the Islamic State strategically, employing military force if necessary, but not by force alone, because weapons can win battles but cannot win wars.

During most of its modern history, Egypt seemed to follow a more or less similar path in its foreign policy: it would align with one major power after another and would thus gain an advantageous position in the region. During the past two centuries, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States have replaced one another in more or less the same role. Amid the “new Cold War” trend being covered lately in the international press and Sisi’s recent visit to Moscow where he signed the first arms deal with Russia since the 1960’s, many have begun speaking of a renewal of the strategic relationship between the two countries and a consequent chill between Cairo and Washington.