John McCain, the scrappy Republican party contender for the U.S. presidency, likes to portray himself as a maverick who marches to the beat of his own drum, as well as a Washington outsider who has bucked his fellow Republicans and a restless reformer who is committed to change.

And while all this may be true  when it comes to some domestic issues, such as the environment and stem cell research, McCain is anything but an iconoclast on foreign policy, his strong suit as a candidate and debater. This is particularly true regarding his views on Israel, Israel’s relationship with the United States, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the struggle for Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s quest for a nuclear arsenal and its crusade against the Jewish state, and the role Hamas plays in the Middle East.

Representing the state of Arizona in the U.S. Senate, McCain is generally viewed as a neo-conservative, yet he has been known to consult such traditional conservatives as Henry Kissinger, who was Richard Nixon’s national security advisor and secretary of state when he was president of the United States.

McCain, who at 72 is the oldest-ever mainstream contender for the office of president, was in part formed by the war in Vietnam, which was divisive and unpopular and claimed the lives of more than 50,000 Americans.

The son of a Navy admiral who commanded the Pacific Fleet in the 1960s, McCain flew combat missions during that interminable war, and after he was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 on his 23rd mission, he spent the next 5-1/2 years in captivity.

The overarching lesson he learned from Vietnam was that it would be foolhardy for the United States to wage war without broad grassroots support. And so, after entering politics in 1982 and winning a seat in the House of Representatives, he opposed U.S. military interventions in a succession of hot spots from Lebanon and Haiti to Somalia and the Balkans.

But as he considered contesting the 2000 presidential race, he modified his views. Observers believe that he was influenced by the 1995 Serbian massacre of 5,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, a Bosnian enclave policed by the NATO alliance.  

From approximately that point onward, McCain talked about the need for a more muscular U.S. approach to foreign affairs to challenge autocratic “rogue” regimes ranging from Serbia to Iraq. It was important to confront them, he argued, because they were more likely to engage in ethnic conflicts and export terrorism and dangerous weapons. “Swift and sure” retribution could serve as a deterrent to other such states, he said.

With this in mind, McCain supported U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Believing that NATO’s future is bound up with the outcome of the war in Afghanistan, he maintains that failure there “risks a reversion to its pre-9/11 role as a sanctuary for Al Qaeda terrorists with global reach, a defeat that would embolden Islamic extremists.” Proceeding from that assumption, McCain holds that NATO must bolster its forces in Afghanistan. If NATO does not prevail, he told the Munich Conference on Security Policy last year, its credibility would suffer “a grievous blow.”

One of the earliest supporters of regime change in Iraq, McCain was an early critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the occupation after the U.S. invasion in  March 2003. Often credited with having been one of the first major political figures to call for a U.S. troop “surge” to stabilize Iraq and defuse its insurgency, McCain has warned of the temptation “to wash our hands of a messy situation” and withdraw precipitously.

In sharp contrast to his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, McCain opposes a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq, contending that a hasty pullout may ignite an Iraqi civil war and consign Iraq to the status of a failed state, thereby increasing the chances of a regional war. “Preventing Iraq from falling into the hands of terrorists and extremists is only na-tural for the United States, and springs from the same interests and values that compel our close relationship with the state of Israel,” he declared in a speech in 2007.

Like Obama, McCain is strongly pro-Israel.

“The bond between America and Israel is not just a strategic one, though that is important,” McCain said last year, describing Israel as a “natural partner and ally.”

He added, “The more profound tie between our two countries is a moral one. We are two democracies whose alliance is forged in our common values. To be proudly pro-American and pro-Israel is not to hold conflicting loyalties.”

McCain’s party platform on Israel is clear and unambiguous: “We affirm America’s commitment to Is-rael’s security and will ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative edge in military technology over any potential adversaries.” Jerusalem should be Israel’s “undivided capital.” Israel must have “secure, defensible borders.” Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state and a right to defend itself.

As well, the platform states that the Palestinians should be granted statehood, but their leaders should reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy and respect the rule of law. The fate of Palestinian refugees should be resolved justly and fairly through negotiations.

The Republican platform also urges the “continued isolation” of Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel and seized the Gaza Strip from Fatah in June 2007. McCain, in a speech last year, said that the United States cannot have “normal relations” with a movement that “deliberately targets innocent Israeli civilians in   an attempt to terrorize the Jewish population.”

He was referring, of course, to Sderot and  places like it adjacent to Gaza. Last March, in his capacity as a senator participating in a fact-finding trip, McCain visited Sderot, which was regularly bombarded by Palestinians until a ceasefire went into effect four months ago. Condemning Hamas, he said, “It’s very difficult to negotiate with an organization that is dedicated to [the destruction of] your existence.”

Shortly after he returned from Israel, a senior Hamas official, Ahmed Yousef, endorsed Obama. “We like Mr. Obama,” he said,” and we hope that he will win the election.”

Embarrassed by the endorsement, Obama quickly distanced himself from Hamas, but McCain tried to make political hay out of it. “I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare,” he said in a conference call with conservative bloggers. “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president. If Senator Obama is favoured by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

On Iran, McCain is just as firm. He has called for “progressively tougher political and economic sanctions” against Iran, which he recently branded as “a grave threat” to Israel should it acquire a nuclear arsenal. In a Sept. 26 debate with Obama, McCain called for “significant and and painful” sanctions to be imposed on Iran. The United States, he says, should not enter into high-level negotiations with the Iranian government until it ceases supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and suspends  efforts to enrich uranium. McCain has not explicitly advocated a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, though the Republican platform keeps “all options” open.

But in a reference to threats uttered by Iran’s president against Israel, McCain has said, “The United States of America can never allow a second Holocaust.” McCain’s vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, has said that Washington should not “second guess” Israel if it decides to attack Iranian nuclear sites.

McCain’s views on Israel and the Middle East satisfy many Jewish Americans, but in keeping with  traditional voting patterns, the majority support Obama by a 57 per cent to 30 per cent margin, as an American Jewish Committee poll found recently.