Special to CNN

As Americans make their New Year’s resolutions, gazing into their crystal balls in anticipation of 2013, they are pessimistic about the economy, doubtful about Washington avoiding the fiscal cliff and worried about rising inequality and economic unfairness. Preoccupied with issues at home, they want to avoid getting dragged deeper into conflicts in the Middle East, but nonetheless are willing to take military action against Iran to halt Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

Downbeat domestic attitudes coupled with reticence about international engagement poses challenges for a world that still may need a strong United States.

After a rise in optimism about the economy in the run up to the U.S. presidential election in November 2012, Americans’ economic outlook has turned more negative on the eve of the New Year. A quarter of the population says the economy will be worse off 12 months from now, up from just 8 percent in September – the highest level of U.S. pessimism since June 2011. Just 37 percent expect the economy to be better off in 2013, down from 43 percent in September.

Given the U.S. economy’s driving role in the global economy, such American pessimism does not bode well for Europe, now mired in recession, nor for China, just poised for a recovery.

Some Americans’ pessimism about 2013 may be driven by the fact that a plurality (49 percent) think that the United States will be unable to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff on January 1, 2013 because the Congress and the White House will fail to reach agreement on a debt reduction strategy. And they are no more optimistic about the long-term prospects of getting the country’s finances in order. Just 44 percent say the country will have made significant progress on the debt five years from now.

Another source of pessimism stems from rising concern about inequality and class conflict. Four-in-ten Americans now strongly believe that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, up from 28 percent in 2002. More than half think that the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy. And just over two-thirds think that there are conflicts between the rich and the poor, an increase of 21 percentage points since 2009.

In 2013, there may be legislation to narrow the rich-poor gap. Certainly, more than two-thirds of the public backs raising taxes on the top 2 percent of the income earners in the United States, a central issue in the fiscal cliff debate.

But there is no sense that the American people are on the verge of class conflict in 2013. Polls show they just want a better chance of achieving success themselves – they do not want redistributive government policies, they want ones that give everyone a fair shot at success, reflecting bedrock American belief in the individual’s ability to succeed through hard work.

Internationally, in 2013, Americans would like to stop the world and just get off. More than eight-in-ten think that Washington should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems at home. Such isolationism has a long history in the United States. But it is on the rise, up 10 percentage points in just the last decade.

This aversion to engagement could have an impact next year on U.S. policies in the Middle East. Six-in-ten Americans want the Obama administration to be less involved in the region, especially in leadership changes, such as the possible change in Damascus. With regard to the war in Syria, a similar percentage say that the United States does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting there, a sentiment in potential conflict with president Obama’s vow to intervene if the Syrian government moves to use chemical weapons in the conflict.

2013 will also be a fateful year for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, as the White House and Pentagon work out the drawdown schedule for the American troops there. For most of the American public, this can’t happen quickly enough. Six-in-ten want the troops removed as soon as possible, up from just 40 percent in 2010.

The desire for disengagement is not evident, however, with regard to the public’s views about Iran. Americans see Tehran’s nuclear weapons program as the greatest international threat to the well-being of the United States. And more than half (56 percent) think that it is more important to take a firm stand with Iran than to avoid a military conflict. This resolve could get tested in the New Year.

A similar public willingness to support confrontation contrary to general isolationist sentiment can be expected in Washington’s relations with Beijing in 2013. Nearly half of Americans think that their government should get tougher on China and such sentiment is up nine percentage points in a year-and-a-half. The Obama administration has already brought more cases against China in the World Trade Organization than did the Bush administration. Americans would seem to support more of the same in 2013.

So the American public looks to 2013 with a mixture of economic pessimism, frustration with domestic economic inequities, isolationism and a touch of continued assertiveness. This is an inward-looking America, but one that can be provoked.

Special to CNN

The pace of change in the Middle East – in Syria, Egypt, Palestine and Israel – is accelerating as 2012 draws to a close. And the centripetal force generated by these developments threatens to draw the United States ever deeper into the region. But as the Obama administration considers what role the United States can and should play there in the months ahead, the White House faces a political dilemma at home. The American people are not paying attention and are deeply skeptical of greater U.S. engagement in a corner of the world that looks increasingly unstable.

The spreading turmoil in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring has soured American attitudes toward the region’s prospects and has not increased Americans’ appetites for greater U.S. involvement there.

In April 2011, not long after the fall of the autocratic Tunisian and Egyptian governments, the American public was divided over whether such changes in political leadership would lead to lasting improvements for people living in those countries, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

By October 2012 a majority (57 percent) were convinced that the Arab Spring would not lead to a long-term change for the better. Possibly disillusioned with what they had seen transpire in Cairo, Tunis and elsewhere, just over half of Americans preferred stable governments in the region, even if that meant less democracy (so much for president Obama’s May 2011 commitment “to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”). And almost two-thirds thought Washington should be less involved in leadership changes in the Middle East.

The civil war in Syria has claimed tens of thousands of lives, the conflict appears to be worsening and there is growing concern in official circles in Washington that the Syrian government may use chemical weapons against its own people. But less than half the American public is paying much attention. Only 38 percent said they were following the political violence in Syria closely in early December, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

This may help explain why recent polls show that the American public has no appetite for U.S. intervention in that war-torn country. More than three-in-five Americans say the United States does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria, according to an early December Pew Research Center survey. And 65 percent oppose arming anti-government rebels in Syria. Such sentiments remain unchanged since the Spring of 2012. Notably, there is no partisan difference on aiding the foes of the Assad regime.

And even the recent fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza has not roused much American interest. Only 49 percent of the U.S. public were closely following news of renewed violence between Israel and Palestine in mid-November. And an early October Pew survey found only a quarter of Americans wanted to increase support for Israel.

But Americans’ sentiments still lie with the Israelis. Half say they sympathize with Israel, only 10 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.

Yet partisan politics could complicate future American action with regard to Israel in its dealings with the Palestinians. Only 33 percent of liberal Democrats sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians, while 75 percent of conservative Republicans side with Israel.

Events on the ground in the Middle East may soon force decisions in Washington about a new degree of American engagement in the region. Whatever the Obama administration decides, the public’s views are clear. They would prefer to sit this one out.

Special to EuropeanVoice

The re-election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States has ramifications—good, bad and indifferent—for transatlantic relations.

Whoever had emerged victorious November 6, the American pivot toward Asia was to continue because of China’s growing magnetic economic and geo-political appeal. But Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Russia, terrorism and trade are still likely to dominate the immediate transatlantic agenda. And differences in public perception on both sides of the Atlantic could pose new tests for the EU-U.S. alliance in the years ahead.

Iran is the most immediate challenge to transatlantic solidarity.

There is extremely strong American and European opposition to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, according to the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes survey in spring, 2012.

But among those who oppose Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal, Americans’ support for the use of military force to halt the Iranian efforts exceeds that in any other country. About six-in-ten (63%) Americans would support military action, compared with 51% in France and Britain and 50% in Germany. Only 24% of Russians would back such a move.

The absence of strong international backing for a strike on Iran could complicate the new president’s ability to build and hold together a united diplomatic front in any effort to deny Tehran nuclear weapons.

Washington’s likely continued offensive against terrorists poses similar, if less threatening, alliance frictions. Europeans are generally supportive of U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism. But they take a sharply negative view of the drone strikes that are likely to continue to be one of America’s principal methods of prosecuting that war. Drones have the overwhelming support of the American public (62%). But they are disapproved of by 76% of the Spanish, 63% of the French and 59% of the Germans.

Afghanistan, Syria and Russia are issues that may divide the alliance less than the campaign rhetoric in the United States presidential race might have suggested.

Obama has promised to get out of Afghanistan by 2014. Both American and European publics are clear, they want all troops out.

Obama has shown no stomach for military intervention in war-torn Syria. And neither the American nor the European publics support allied military involvement in Syria: 59% of Europeans and 55% of Americans say their governments should stay out completely, according to the 2012 German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Trends survey.

Obama’s promised reset of relations with Moscow was more of an ambition than a policy. Time will tell if it can be realized in his second term.

But European and American publics are clear. They don’t trust Russia: 55% of Europeans and 48% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Russia, according to the GMF survey. But they like the status quo. Half of Europeans (56%) and Americans (53%) approve of the way Obama has managed relations with Russia so far.

Trade promises to be a unifying transatlantic issue in the next administration. Later this year, the Obama administration is expected to announce plans to negotiate a free trade agreement with Europe. And Brussels is in agreement.

Overwhelming majorities on both sides of the Atlantic think trade is good for their countries, despite worries about its impact on jobs and incomes. France and American unions, both long skeptical of trade liberalization, have been largely silent about a transatlantic free trade deal, a positive sign. European and American farmers are likely to be wary. But prospects for completing such an agreement during the next U.S. administration are better than they have ever been.

Obama will continue the U.S. pivot toward Asia. Nevertheless, the European-American agenda will remain busy, with a number of issues that have to be properly managed to avoid alliance tensions. But with the re-election of Barack Obama, who is more popular across Europe than any other European leader and who most Europeans wanted to remain in the White House, there is no danger of a return of the transatlantic tensions that marked the Bush administration in the last decade.

Special to CNN

Foreign policy is the forgotten stepchild of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. At a time when the United States is engaged in the longest war in its history in Afghanistan, when in the eyes of foreigners U.S. stature as the hegemonic power is in question, and when a euro crisis could derail the American economy’s tenuous recovery from the Great Recession, voters choosing their next president are turning inward, preoccupied with domestic affairs to an extent unprecedented in recent times. Nevertheless, when the national security of the United States is seen as threatened by Iran or terrorism, voters remain aggressively internationalist.

Mitt Romney, in his speech accepting the Republican presidential candidacy, failed to mention the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the civil war in Syria or the legacy of Iraq. NATO, the principle U.S. security alliance, was ignored. There was scant reference to China. And the single mention of Russia was intended to show that Romney would be tougher than president Barack Obama in dealing with Moscow.

Obama devoted more time to foreign policy in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, reminding voters that he ended the war in Iraq, has set a withdrawal date for Afghanistan, has been tough with China and would not restart the Cold War with Russia. But he too made no mention of Syria or NATO.

Read the full commentary at CNN’s Global Public Square blog

With the uprising against him showing no signs of abating, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is widely unpopular in neighboring countries. And the vast majority of Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians and Turks would like to see him step down. In Lebanon, however, views differ sharply along sectarian lines, with Shia Muslims overwhelmingly expressing support for the Assad regime.

Even though many would like to see Assad out of office, there is no consensus on taking action to dislodge him from power. There is limited support for tougher international economic sanctions or Arab military intervention, and very little support for Western military action.

These are among the key findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted from March 19 to April 20, prior to the May 25 massacre in Houla, Syria, as well as other recent acts of violence against civilians by pro-Assad forces.

Few Have Positive View of Assad

Large majorities hold an unfavorable opinion of Assad in Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey. In Lebanon, which was occupied by Syrian forces for three decades before they withdrew in 2006, about six-in-ten (59%) express an unfavorable view of Assad, but opinions of him vary dramatically across the country’s major religious communities.

About nine-in-ten Lebanese Sunni Muslims (92%) express a negative opinion of Assad, as do 66% of the country’s Christians. However, almost all Shia Muslims (96%) have a favorable view of Assad, who is a member of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam.

Assad Should Go, But No Consensus on Taking Action

Nearly nine-in-ten say Assad should step down in Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia, and two-thirds agree in Turkey. Again, views in Lebanon reflect sectarian divisions: 80% of Sunnis and 67% of Christians want Syria’s autocratic ruler to leave office, compared with just 3% of Shia Muslims.

The widespread desire for Assad to step down does not translate, however, into support for economic sanctions or military action against Syria. Tunisia is the only country in which a majority approves of tougher sanctions on Syria.

Similarly, Tunisia is the only nation polled in which most would support military intervention by Arab states to remove Assad from power.

And there is no country in which a majority favors military intervention by Western countries. About four-in-ten Tunisians (38%) endorse this idea, while fewer than a quarter in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon support Western military action.