Thus, the Iraq war is not about to be wound up. It will be pursued with renewed zeal. If Kerry flies past the winning post he will try to rope in a few other nations to share the human cost of American occupation. Bush will muddle on and favoured sectors of Corporate America will go on rolling in profits. The US has meant to reshape the Middle East; that may change marginally but not substantially; but keeping Iraq under occupation for larger American purposes is not likely to be affected.

In the Arab-Israeli dispute no change need be expected from either contender to the Presidential gaddi. In a way, it is possible to say that the real winner of Nov 2 will be Ariel Sharon's Israel no matter if American President's name on Nov 3 is Bush or Kerry. Depending upon Israeli politics, Sharon's plans will go on being supported by American government. The much betrayed Palestinians had better make themselves ready for whatever Final Solution Sharon has in mind of the Palestine Problem. The US is sure to go along with it.

Logically, no significant change can be expected in the US policy towards Afghanistan. Here too this or that Karzai will be kept in 'power'. Pakistan will continue to be asked 'to do more' -- regarding both al-Qaeda and Taliban. Islamabad may expect more money from the US for specific purposes like reforming religious curricula or for better tackling of terrorism or for carrying out CBMs with India, especially in Kashmir.

But the Afghans are unlikely to see the departure of American troops, not that NATO can extricate its troops easily. US cooperation is for unlimited period, irrespective of the state of security or stability of the political system there. Ergo occupation of the four or more Pakistani bases by the US will go on. The network of American bases in the ME, the fleets in Persian Gulf and Pakistan bases are meant to be a solid rear for US forces in Central and other parts of Asia, now thinly spread out.

America inevitably has a lot of business to transact in Caucasus and Central Asia: Oil, other minerals, chances of investments, likely military purchases by some former Soviet republics beckon and of course there are the strategic purposes. A lot of possible geopolitical action would seem to impend in Russia, China, Korean Peninsula, South China Sea. It is good to be well placed with good supply lines. South Asia and Afghanistan have an enabling role to sustain the US while it engages in its myriad chores of a hyper power. Bush or Kerry the work will be the same.

One thing is also certain, no matter who wins the US Presidency on Tuesday: either contender will go on working hard to forge an ever expanding military cooperation with India; that is what a strategic relationship comprises. But the course of love, war and strategic relations never run smooth; hurdles and hiccups can be expected. But no breakdown seems likely. Pakistanis, important enough for their assigned role and location, will have to adjust to it. The recent sense of urgency in President Musharraf's campaign of making Pakistanis think outside the box on Kashmir may be related to America's own roadmap for Asia. It will stay the same for Bush or Kerry.

Of particular interest to Pakistan is the near certainty of the US making non-proliferation of nuclear weapons the main thrust of its declaratory policies. The AQ Khan story is not dead; it will continue to be used to keep Pakistan in line. It is likely to prove a good lever to pressurise the country. As far non-proliferation campaign is concerned, it is shot through and through with contradictions: the US is constantly engaged in proliferation, vertical as well as horizontal: new nuclear ammo for bunker busting and that son of Star Wars, the anti-ballistic missile defence. It is aggressively selling this new defence against missiles to Tokyo, Taipei and New Delhi. The basis of American power is the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, making these the currency of power and influence. Why should other deny themselves of what is kosher for America of both Bush and Kerry?

Then there are three special cases of Israel, South Korean experiments and of what India has been doing. Contrast American attitudes to those three with its stance vis-à

-vis the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Libya has done a South Africa and has become respectable. Iraq was severely punished for a crime it had expatiated for under IAEA's urgings some time ago. Israel remains the darling of the US and its nuclear stockpiles -- thought to be larger than Britain's or France's -- apparently cause no worry to any democratic -- read white -- country. The US protection of it, despite its horrible transgressions of Palestinians' human rights and proliferation, remains the cornerstone of US ME policy. Some hold that the whole US foreign policy is being driven by concern for Israel. Kerry has no new list of priorities that vitally differs from Bush's.

But apparently some sins cannot be atoned for. One such is being committed by North Korea and another is sought to be committed by Iran. Here the US shows a different face, though there is no realistic likelihood of American preventive action; its cost will be too high and success may not be assured through a short, sharp intervention. North Korea is too complicated a case; in any case, nobody knows how Russia and China will behave if the US mounted an invasion. But an adequately rearmed Japan -- an apparent objective of US policy being propagated by US media -- can be relied upon to tackle that. What is the difference in the approaches of Bush or Kerry for solving these crises?

China is a resurgent power; it largely remains an unknown factor. Bush or Kerry, the present mix of US policy is unlikely to change soon. Strategic moves apart, China is to be integrated into the world economy and US wants a share in the cake of the huge profits to be had from the Chinese market. The US cultivation of Taiwan and Tokyo's going nuclear -- the American media's prescription -- may be for 'just in case'. But the American moves in Northeast Asia as well as Central Asia are well worth watching and none of these are likely to be affected by the Nov 2 election results.

Needless to say the broad outlines of US policies vis-à-vis the third world are likely to stay the same; that is a near certainty. As for Pakistan, the ruling establishment need not worry. The need for bases in this country, thanks to its location, will keep it in power -- and money. But its track record is not good in American eyes. That is because of Pakistani rulers' obsession with Kashmir; it is prone to go on squabbling with India. Which may be the reason why Gen. Musharraf is going flat out for a permanent settlement with India quickly. That will cement Pak-US ties. In any case, Musharraf has some leeway because the US need for Pakistan's cooperation is unlikely to go away, Bush or Kerry.

What we do not know is how America's domestic issues will fare under Bush or Kerry. Even here there are some semi-certainties. Economic paradigm of low taxes and pruning of social sector expenditures is unlikely to be ended even under Kerry, though there will be a lot of talk about changing some aspects of social security, health and education sectors. But lack of support in Congress is likely to stymie him while Bush is a known category. Strong continuation can be expected on domestic security; there can be no let up on that. Only style and rhetoric are likely to change with Kerry. American economy's health is being debated; so far no one seems to have a panacea for its ills. Kerry may also show greater awareness of the outside world.

There are also few moot issues: Kerry, if elected, may try to make US adhere to Kyoto accord of 1997. There may be renewed rhetoric on the need for more anti-missile defence if Bush returns to White House. Kerry can be suspected to start talking of some nuclear disarmament with Russia, though not with anyone else in Europe, Israel or China -- Pakistan may be the main exception among known nuclear powers. But that will be superficial -- for political purposes. They used to say Kerry will care more for the UN and international law. But that was an unfounded expectation. Both scions of rich families will go on deferring to special interests that will have helped put one of them in power.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.