Lately a stream of news reports has been floating around saying the United States and Iraq will soon sign an agreement on US military pullout and long-term political, economic and security relations between the two countries.

In addition to such stories, the US Department of Defense announced in its 2008 National Defense Strategy that the US will step up counter-terrorist actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the near future. The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, also expressed more than once their wish to order US troops out of Iraq as well as sending more US soldiers to the two South Asian nations to beef up counter-terrorist fighting power.

This lends one the impression that the United States' foreign strategies and especially its "global anti-terror strategy" seem about to change. After a complete and relatively in-depth analysis, however, one might find that the US near- and medium-term foreign strategy crosshair will remain locked on the "Broader Middle East", unless its anti-terror-oriented national security strategy undergoes a significant change of course.

First of all, the so-called US military "pullout" from Iraq will be limited. This is the most important reason why the US foreign strategy will remain focused on the "Broader Middle East".

Today Iraq's security situation has indeed improved noticeably. The overall incidence of terrorist attacks has dropped 80 percent since early 2007; while ethnic and tribal clashes have decreased by 90 percent; the number of car and suicide bomb attacks dropped from more than 100 in March 2007 to about 40 in July this year; the number of casualties the Iraqi security forces sustained in the same period also shrank by half, as fewer and fewer people fled their homes for safety.

The newly-adopted political structure of democracy is steadily advancing onto the tracks of normal operation, as the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds increasingly seek to settle issues through political channels, and the country's political environment is changing.

Iraq's economic situation has improved, too, as more markets and shops have reopened, while economic exchanges and particularly cooperation in energy resources with other countries have resumed. Such improvements have paved the way for US forces to pull out of Iraq and their departure is now only a matter of when and how many at a time.

Given the current situation, however, the US cannot "pull out" of Iraq once and for all, because the improved condition for reconstruction is still rather fragile, with new challenges emerging as we speak.

As General David Petraeus, former commanding general of Multi-National Forces - Iraq and now commander of the US Central Command, once said, this kind of improvement "is not yet sustainable and self-contained", and "there are still many things (America needs) to do (in Iraq)."

That means the improved situation in Iraq could be reversed and what has been achieved in the process of reconstruction would be completely wasted if too many of the US forces pull out of Iraq too early.

To be precise, the "pullout" of US forces is actually a further reduction of American soldiers deployed in Iraq as the local security situation allows. The core issues of the agreement on troops pullout that the US and Iraq are discussing right now are the legal status of US forces stationed in Iraq after the UN resolution authorizing the occupation expires at the end of the year and maintaining security.

And the "deadline for US pullout" actually refers to the date of the next major reduction of US forces in Iraq.

The agreement on bilateral political, economic and security ties, meanwhile, will provide a framework for their long-term strategic relationship and resolving any issue concerning the long-term interests and military presence of the US in Iraq.

A senior US military officer in charge of training Iraqi security forces said that Iraq will be able to assume security responsibilities on its own in 2009.

Considering the recent situation over there, if what that US officer said really pans out, a more realistic choice would be for American troops to start pulling out of Iraq in 2010 and stop the process the following year when only half of the troops, or about 50,000 of them, are left in Iraq.

This is a consensus among quite a few experts from US think tanks and in line with what Obama unveiled in his "My Plan for Iraq" published in International Herald Tribune in July as well as the goal of securing stability in Iraq proposed by McCain.

Second, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East peace will keep the US busy. This conflict has been at the heart of the Middle East issue ever since the State of Israel was founded in 1948 and its importance has not really been lost, even though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Iran nuclear problem nudged it to the back seat at the moment.

It is a popular belief of the world community, including the US, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a key factor affecting relations between the US and Arab countries, or the whole Islamic world for that matter, but particularly aggravating anti-US sentiments that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US and hampering Washington's counter-terrorist plan.

Achieving peace between Arab countries and Israel will help ease tensions in the Middle East with "positive and immediate" results on "almost all American interests" in that region and even the whole Islamic world. A lot of people in the US and Israel believe that any one who wants to be the American president must treat the security of Israel as the second most important thing on the US administration's daily agenda. If any one needs a convincing proof, just look at George W. Bush, who somewhat neglected the Arab-Israeli conflict in his early days as US president but is now pushing for Middle East peace as his "foreign relations legacy" in the final year of his term in office.

From Israel's point of view, the only way to ensure its security is to make peace with Palestine and other Arab nations and whoever succeeds Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will have to keep on pushing forward the peace process with the US behind the steering wheel.

As the front man of the "neo-conservatives" McCain will no doubt try to keep the Bush policy alive if he gets elected. As for the democrats' chosen lead, Obama would probably be even more driven in advancing the Middle East peace process if he wins the presidency in November. That scenario was written all over his speech made during his recent trip to Israel as well as similar calls by his fellow democrats.

Third, the Iran issue will come to an end someday. In "Rethinking the National Interest", published in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice labels Iran "a state fundamentally out of step with the norms and values of the international community" that poses a "particular challenge".

It "pursues its disruptive policies both through state instrumentsand non-state proxies", "seeks to subvert states and extend its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East", "threatens the state of Israel with extinction and holds implacable hostility toward the United States", and "is destabilizing Iraq". "Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.

She also says clearly: "Should the Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent enemies."

Today the broad international game of handling Iran with peaceful negotiation, sanctions or military strike is still going on. Be it McCain's hard-nosed initiative or Obama's dialogue approach the US will have to do it with a lot of determination, strength and resources.

Fourth, obviously the US must turn back and beef up counter-terrorist efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban has risen in Afghanistan and joined forces with al-Qaida again. It is growing as a destructive force and becoming more rampant everyday, presenting a sharp contrast to the improving situation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, as Pakistan sinks deeper into political unrest, Islamic extremism is rearing its ugly head again with the Taliban attempting to fill the power vacuum in the northern tribal region of Pakistan, putting the country at serious risk of being "Talibanized".

The Bush administration has ruled out further military reinforcement in Afghanistan but is pressing its NATO allies to send more troops to that country instead. The New York Times has asked Washington in a recent editorial to add preconditions to its military aid for Afghanistan and step up monitoring of its use so as to ensure all such resources go into the counter-terrorist campaign.

Apparently, if the US is able to pull a good number of troops out of Iraq, it would seem logical for Washington to refocus on counter-terrorist efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan with increased military power. Obama already suggested that at least 10,000 more US soldiers should go to Afghanistan.

As a matter of fact, Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of what Washington calls "the broader Middle East", too, and it would just be a military redeployment within "the broader Middle East" for the US to pull a large number of its troops out of Iraq while sending more to Afghanistan.

To sum it all up, the future strategic center of gravity of the US foreign policies will remain in "the broader Middle East" no matter what Washington decides to do - withdraw its armed forces from Iraq, beef up its military presence in Afghanistan, keep pushing forward the Arab-Israeli peace process, achieve strategic reconciliation with Iran or pick a fight instead.

The author is director of the Center of Strategic Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations

(China Daily September 3, 2008)