Mideast Crisis Intensifies Politics Swirling About Campaign

— -- How will Middle East violence impact the U.S. presidential race? Read how one political insider sees it all.

By Elizabeth WilnerABCNEWS.comOct. 12

— Just when you thought the presidential race couldn’t get any more rancorous, violence erupts in the Middle East and the candidates unite in outrage over the

shedding of American blood.

Overseas events probably stymie the efforts of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore’s campaign to win the spin war in the aftermath of Wednesday night’s debate, and maybe even freezes the public perception that Republican George W. Bush did well. This puts more pressure on Gore to score big at the final debate next Tuesday night in St. Louis, so as to avoid the perception of a net loss. The Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein observes that Democrats have given up hope that Gore could knock Bush out in the debates.

“Now … the best Gore may be able to hope for is to emerge even from the three encounters — and find another way to beat Bush in the three weeks left.”

The Troubles

But the tensions overseas have, at least temporarily, subdued the rancorous back-and-forth between the campaigns. ABCNEWS’ John Berman advises there is not likely to be any dissension whatsoever from the Bush camp on the administration’s handling of the crises. Bush aides all call Gore’s hasty return to Washington on Thursday “appropriate,” and are generally refusing to speculate on the potential political ramifications of the troubles there. They must be happy and relieved that Bush seemed to establish his foreign policy smarts before all this happened.

Bush and Gore now must figure out how to use the situation to their advantage without being seen as playing politics. Gore may be able to attain some presidential shine through his involvement in handling the situation as vice president, but Gore absolutely cannot afford to have any maneuverings seem as painfully obvious as his handling of Elian Gonzalez earlier this year.

Although the Bushies may not be questioning Clinton/Gore’s approach to the current crises in the Middle East, they may seek to draw attention today to another little problem in the administration’s foreign policy. The New York Times today covers a secret pact between the administration, negotiated by Gore, and then-Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin in 1995, “calling for an end to all Russian sales of conventional weapons to Iran by the end of 1999.” In exchange, “the United States pledged not to seek penalties against Russia under a 1992 law that requires sanctions against countries that sell advanced weaponry to countries the State Department classifies as state sponsors of terrorism,” including Iran. The gist of the story is that the deadline for Russia to end weapons sales to Iran has passed and such sales still have not ceased.