Bush speech gets good grade

Scott Lucas is Professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham in the UK. He is also the founder and editor of EA World View, an online publication about the wider Middle East, US and Russian foreign policy.

What's your main take-away from Jeb Bush's Middle East foreign policy speech last night?

The main take-away in terms of policy, in terms of becoming president, is trying to establish his credentials not only against Hillary Clinton, but also against other Republicans, by doing two things. One, by attacking President Obama as weak and uncertain; And two, in contrast, by portraying himself as a very tough, but a very responsible president. He did that by invoking the image of Ronald Reagan. The speech was at the Reagan Library and he repeatedly referred to Ronald Reagan. He is doing that not only to take on the mantle of Ronald Reagan, but to distance himself from his brother whose policy in Iraq is not being seen as very responsible or very smart.

On terms of the foreign policy substance of the speech, I think the most substantial and important thing he called for was a clear US strategy against the ‘Islamic State' in Syria - interestingly not Iraq, but Syria - where he set out a series of steps not just against the ‘Islamic State', but also against the Assad regime: no-fly zones in the North, aid to what he called moderate rebels, and a clear way forward which envisaged both the defeat of the ‘Islamic State' and the overthrow of Assad.

He also spoke about defeating the ‘Islamic State' in Iraq, but there I don't think he was as clear. I don't think he was able to put together a series of steps really beyond saying we are going to put an unspecified number of American advisers into the Iraqi armed forces.

The reason why I don't think he was very clear on Iraq is that all American politicians are caught between the fact to really be effective in Iraq who have to make a substantial intervention on the ground as well as in the air and the memory of Iraq 2003 as well as the resistance of local Iraqis rules that out.

On Bush's domestic goal, did he succeed in establishing his foreign policy credentials?

I am not a big fan of Bush and of the Republicans, but I thought it was a pretty effective speech. It was well thought out on Syria which is a rarity for US politicians who quite often show little knowledge of the conflict. I thought, although he was really vague on the way forward in Iraq, he at least had a clear idea what is happening there.

The one thing that takes away from the Iraq approach was this meaningless sound bite that supposedly the American surge in 2007/08 had turned the situation around and was winning the conflict there. That's a myth and it's not right.

But I thought he was solid in what he showed in terms of being knowledgeable. My questions are whether Republican voters, one, are going to be really engaged with foreign policy in terms of it determining their vote for the nomination, and two, whether they really care about the details of Syria and Iraq. The irony for Bush is, and this is not just for foreign policy, he shows thought and depth in his policy positions, but that all the oxygen so far has been sucked out of that because of the rather sensational sound bites and successful approach that has been taken by people, like Donald Trump, aided and abetted by a lot of conservative media.

In his speech, Bush promised to undo the Iran deal if Congress won't reject it. How realistic is that?

Here's where I am going to put my big caveat on his foreign policy being thoughtful. Most of the Republican Party and most conservatives and a lot of American commentators are awash in misinformation and disinformation about the Iran deal.

There is space for a thoughtful discussion and there should be a thoughtful discussion on what the deal is going to do and what it means on the nuclear issue, what it means for the region and indeed for international issues beyond the nuclear deal. But the Republican Party is not interested in a sensible discussion about this. They are immersed in hyperbole, exaggeration and distortion to try to kill this deal. And the problem for Bush is, he probably knows this: you cannot come out for the Iran deal, or even be neutral on it. That would basically be a campaign killer for him not to join this bandwagon which is saying that this thing is the worst thing ever.

How realistic is his promise to repeal the Iran deal should he be elected?

It's not realistic and I think he knows it. The fact is the deal is going to go through, I am pretty sure, despite the Republican opposition, because there will be enough Democrats to hold the line. And because it will probably go through, by January 2017 when the new president comes into office, he or she will face a deal which will have been in effect for well over a year. By that time – and I am touching a lot of wood here – we will have seen whether we have Iranian compliance with the deal or not and whether there is an open Iranian-US conflict over Iraq or over Syria. If the deal holds and everything else remains the same, a president is not going to be in a position to say “let's just tear all this up” and go back to perpetual tension and uncertainty.

This interview was conducted by Michael Knigge.