Middle East has been the most important and controversial international issue in the hard-fought French presidential election campaign. And depending on the results, the election may mark the first major change on that issue for over three decades.

Both Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, the candidates of the center-right and Socialists, respectively, have promised major shifts in France’s stance on the Iranian, Lebanese, and Israeli-Palestinian issues if they win. They are reacting against the regime of outgoing President Jacques Chirac, who for 12 years–following in the footsteps of predecessors back to Charles de Gaulle–has allied with such Arab dictators as Yasir Arafat and Saddam Hussein. By making France the Arabs’ favorite Western state, Chirac and other Gaullists have tried to create an alignment to counter the great–and in France, much-despised–primacy of the United States.

Yet, many say this strategy has brought little benefit to France, either directly or in terms of making it a credible world power. There are many contradictions. For example, French policy seeks to protect Lebanon while refusing to regard Hizballah as a terrorist organization. Moreover, last January, Chirac stated that Iran’s possession of nuclear bombs would “not be so dangerous,” reversing previous official positions.

The two main French newspapers, Le Figaro and Le Monde, have highlighted this debate in reviews of a new book entitled Chirac of Arabia: The Mirages of French Policy, by Eric Aeschimann and Christophe Boltanski, two journalists at the leftist French newspaper Liberation. The authors underline French errors in particular on the Palestinian issue, which was perceived by Chirac solely through Yasir Arafat’s eyes.

They also document the close personal relations between Chirac, then prime minister, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the mid-1970s, when Chirac received substantial funds from Baghdad for his political party in exchange for French support for the Iraqi nuclear program. Chirac stated then: “Saddam will be the De Gaulle of the Middle East.” The same story goes for Chirac’s ties to Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi in the 1980s. Ironically, though, when Libya recently wanted to break out of international isolation, it turned not to France, but to the United States and Great Britain.

For Chirac’s would-be successors on the left and right, and indeed among large sectors of the French political spectrum, the broad consensus on the country’s historic Middle East policy is crumbling. Candidates have been anxious to dissociate themselves from Chirac’s line on Syria, Iran, Israel, and the Palestinians.

In the Socialist camp, Segolene Royal adopted a very hard stance regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. She declared that Iran ought to be denied even control of nuclear power, because it could be a cover for weapons-making. According to her analysis, “The prospect of Iran equipped with nuclear power is not acceptable,” since it would give “a government whose president threatens the existence of the State of Israel… access to such power.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Royal dissociated herself from the French pro-Palestinian stance. Expressing concerns about the security of Israel, she declared herself in favor of the construction of the safety fence so disparaged by French officials.

Sarkozy, who is actually the Gaullist candidate, has adopted a strategic stance in total opposition to Chirac’s Middle East vision. He prefers close cooperation with the United States over an alliance with the Arab world that, to some extent, is aimed against America.

Regarding Israel, Sarkozy promised a more balanced French policy. Thus, last March, he asserted that French decision-makers must be able “to say a certain number of truths to our Arab friends, for example… the right for Israel to exist and to live safely is not negotiable, and that terrorism is their true enemy.” He also declared himself ready to defend “the integrity of Lebanon,” including the disarmament of Hizballah.

As for the centrist candidate Francois Bayrou, the third main contestant, he stated that while remaining faithful to a Realist, power-oriented conception of international affairs, he also wishes “to establish a French foreign policy which would have as a main theme the right to democracy. No dictatorship is acceptable, even if, at short term, it appears in favor of the national interests” of France.

It should be noted that there is no question of appealing to a “Jewish vote” in such statements. Muslim voters vastly outnumber Jewish ones. Rather, there is a genuine conclusion that France’s policy has not worked and indeed has undercut both French interests and ambitions.

This challenge to France’s historic pro-Arab policy could lead to a new vision of the Middle East. In this alternative approach, France could play a major role in the defense of Lebanon’s independence, containing the Iranian threat, combating terrorism, building strong relations with Israel, playing a truly central role in peacemaking efforts, and even cooperating with the United States.

When it comes to Middle East policy, there is a chance of a real French revolution.

Stephanie Levy is a research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya. She previously worked for the French Ministry of Defense.