Foreign Policy, Not the Economy, May Define the Obama Presidency
Even as the Obama administration may be consumed by efforts to stem the depth and duration of the recession, we appear to be at a tipping point in foreign affairs that can lead to positive new directions or a new downward spiral in regional conflicts.
The opportunities at hand are complex and interconnected. And unlike the high stakes, three-hand game among Russia, China and the United States of the Nixon era, which subsumed all of the smaller countries into bit roles, the diplomatic world today involves a wide range of actors, each of whom has real interests, has signaled their readiness to play, and can each affect the potential outcomes for the others.
The historical background is important in several regards. First, the global economic collapse has illustrated the interdependence of national economies, while at the same time demonstrated the risks to individual states that flow from that interdependence. Accordingly, many national leaders find themselves at a point where they have to choose--both as a matter of policy and politics--whether they are in or out, whether they accept the rules of globalization, free trade, and interdependence, or whether they will opt for a return to economic protectionism and political self-preservation.
Second, the election of Barack Obama signaled the end of the neoconservative era in US policy, and portends a renaissance of realism in foreign affairs and diplomacy based on national self-interest. As much as war might be the proven solution to depressions past, Americans have grown weary and cynical over calls to arms and regime change over every looming international confrontation, and the rest of the world seems ready to embrace new directions as well.
Russia, for one, has been pushing for an alignment of interests since Vladimir Putin first called George Bush to pledge Russia's support after the 9/11 attacks. Putin sought--but ultimately failed--to build a new strategic relationship with the US around a number of specific areas of common interest--stemming the Jihadist threat emerging in Chechnya and Muslim former Soviet republics, defeating the Taliban, controlling Iran's nuclear ambitions, and controlling drug trafficking--for which Russia could leverage the reinstatement of the Bush '41 and Clinton-era US commitments to curtail NATO expansion toward Russia.
Now, after several years of declining relations, and with the ruble in free-fall, Putin is signaling a desire to try again. After years of trying to swing a big stick to get our attention--cutting off natural gas supplies to Ukraine and Europe, sending arms to Iran and Venezuela, and sending tanks into Georgia--Russia is trying a bit of carrot--opening its territory for the US to resupply its troops in Afghanistan and delaying the deployment of missiles in Kaliningrad.
Iran, meanwhile, is looking to get into the carrot and stick game. Like Russia, Iran grates at being disrespected and has sought out strategies that might force the US to bargain on equal terms. Certainly, as President Obama announced his plans for withdrawing from Iraq, it was not lost on many that Iran--almost single-handedly--can determine whether those plans can succeed.
Iran has much to offer--enabling an exit from Iraq, moderating the role and conduct of Hezbollah, and, of course addressing the nuclear issue--and has much to gain--recognition of its role as a regional power, reducing the threat of American troops on both its eastern and western boarders, fears of being frozen out in a US-Russian rapproachment, and an end to American threats of regime change.
Like Russia, Iran's economy is in shambles, and the June presidential election looms to be a critical moment. The entrance of former president Mohammad Khatami into the presidential race in early February may signal that Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei is willing to move toward a moderation of Iran's hard line direction and rhetoric, embodied in current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and substantively address the concerns of the international community.
Syria, another long-time target of US regime change, also needs to demonstrate its bona fides at this moment of political change. Just as Russia reached out to Syria over the past several years to demonstrate its continuing ability to stir the always-simmering Middle East pot, Syria can on its own significantly influence the next trajectory in the politics of the Middle East.
Like Iran, Syria controls one long border with Iraq, and can influence the outcome of President Obama's exit strategy. Similarly, as the home of the Hamas political leadership, and as the long-time suzerain of Lebanon, the Syrian intelligence apparatus can directly control the direction and temperature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Like others, Syria has its interests--in territory and regime survival--for which it will play its cards.
Achieving our foreign policy goals requires that each of these key nations change their approach to us and to others. We have tried threats of regime change and war, and we are broke and tired. Ironically, however, this has led to a moment of opportunity where each country may be motivated to move in a new and positive direction.
For Russia, Iran and Syria, this is a moment of opportunity. Their leaders, Putin, Khamenei and Assad, are rational and cunning adversaries. Each has demonstrated the ability to work with us when it served they and their country's interests, or to resist our threats and recriminations when it did not. Each of them has a hand to play, and yet each knows that they risk being left behind if they fail to seize the moment.
For Barack Obama, as well, this is a moment of opportunity. But as he has suggested when speaking of the economic challenges we face, in the world of foreign policy, our major challenges are interconnected. He cannot put any aside for another day.
Iraq. Afghanistan. Iran. Pakistan. Al Qaeda. Israel-Palestine. Lebanon. Energy. Venezuela. For each of these, Russia, Iran and Syria--in one combination or another--can be the fulcrum for success or failure.
This is the President's moment.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Fugeddaboudit! It's all about the money, honey!
The main characteristic of Americans today appears to be self-interest - - and in the midst of the worst economic meltdown most working Americans have seen thus far - - like Carville said 17-18 years ago - - "It's the economy, stupid!"
If Obama bet wrong on Pelosi's 'stimulus package' - the GOPs may well reclaim the Congress in 2010 - and Obama will be toast in 2012 - and will be harangued by the GOPs evermore, worse than they now do to Jimmy Carter!
If Obama doesn't turn the economy around, the DEM party can probably disband.
soon to be Obama's wars as he accedes to the generals of destruction.
A lap top in every cafe in America. Why not ,we need better communications in this world ..Keep in touch with your friends & love ones..
Peace..
The author is silent on the possibility of improving our foreign relations by reigning in Israeli aggression and expansionism.
ITS TIME FOR THE PRESIDENT TO TELL THE WORLD TO HELL WITH YOU GUYS WE HAVE BLED AMERICANS NEARLY TO DEATH WITH TAXES TO PROP UP YOUR CORRUPT REGIMES. FOR NOW I WANT HIM TO CONCENTRATE ON AMERICA. SCREW THESE ONE WORLD FOLKS. THEY NEED TO GROW UP AND TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
I agree totally. i would love to see our President call for a foreign policy speech. then say the
the following: Dear Middle East. Iran, Iraq, Afhganistan, Saudi Aradia,et al. the U.S. government will be exiting your countries as soon as physically possible. We will take everything we brought with us or blow it up.
You have our permission to kill as many of each other as you feel necessary. We will step aside,
because we have decided you people are crazy. You and your country and your oil or whatever
else you have that you think we need is not worth one more American Life, or one more American
dollar. Do not leave your country. Do not try to send money out of your country. We will stop all
international traffic on the ground, in the air, or on the internets. You will be isolated like you
have the black plaque. All of your citizens in America will be returned to you. You can only deal
with each other until one of you wins. good luck w./ that. Stick a fork in
us - we are done.
Look at David Paul's mentioned nations: He hits every continent except Australia and Antarctica. We can toss in Haiti and Somalia where we toppled the governments and Cuba where we didn't. Add the little scorn for France and England. How about the borders with Mexico and Canada? Dear allies? Well, unlike in Pakistan we aren't bombing there.
The US is not passionately xenophobic, just xenophobic. Success in foreign relations is something for Presidents to do after they have lost authority at home. George W Bush spoke of the need to be humble in foreign relations, a really good idea though humorous in context.
Lies and deceptions about Iraq and Obama, from Ron Paul:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025672.html
Well said but talking to diff ears would bring no changes. What is a smart guy like this doing among a bunch of idiots? What a waste?
louisa?
You don't know why Ron Paul is among a bunch of idiots? You haven't heard the phrase "Republicans are the idiot party and democrats the evil party?"
It's better to be among the idiots, than the evil doers. At least according to a fine man like Ron Paul (who is a Libertarian, by the way).
Libertarians cannot seem to stand the fascism and totalitarianism of democrats. Let alone their criminal thinking about other peoples' property.
Syria and Iran have offered for years now, to help bring stability to Iraq so the US can withdraw all of its armed forces without difficulty.
Russia's Middle East foreign policy makes much more sense that the mess put together by the US, acting as always under heavy pressure from Aipac and Israeli militarists.
The US should start preparing to leave Afghanistan, where US military action has only increased the level of instability.
Will the next conflict be fought in order to maintain economic strength?
To regain title to foreign owned US industries?
Because some foreign country refused to accept US dollars for their oil?
Because the USA refused to let foreigners redeem their paper US dollars, T-Bills, Bonds, and other government securities (that they earned by making the imported goods that we consumed or that they bought on the open market) to purchase title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and everything else of value that is located in the USA.
What will be the buying power of the dollar when we have nothing left that the foreigners want for redemption of the dollars they earned by manufacturing the things that we imported and consumed????????? This is selling of our children's legacy to foreign owners, and the US government calls it "Investing in America". This is sort-of like selling our body parts to keep from working!!!!!
Wars are the deaths of Republics.Nations cannot have perpetual war!Rome,Spain,and Britain(during WW2)lost there empires.and there world positions,and went into econmoic decline.Since 1942,the USA has reached for global dominence,and achieved it fully after the Cold Wars end.The Republican party,know longer led by traditional,moderate-conservatives;but aligned,post Reagan with a coaltion of Neoconservative globalists,and fundemenilists,religious zealots of the Gingrich-Bush-Limbaugh mold sought and crusaded for empire.Seekig to create even more entangling alliances,practicing preventive war.They have brought us to ruin.As a former Republican,I'm hopful that Obama can detangle the mess.It is of Hercularean proportions.
It really isn't of Herculean proportions. We've got Obama leading the way and he can chew gum and walk at the same time. Unlike McCain, who had to suspend his campaign during the banking bailout. Where's your faith? We've got Obama man!! Yeah!
This is indeed a moment of opportunity for America to change it's foreign relations with the world. Unfortunately, it is slipping away. Much as with the first two or three months after the Iraq invasion, there is an openness to moving in newer, more progressive directions. However, as with Iraq, if we do not act now, it will take surprisingly little time for the old, adversarial paradigms to reassert themselves. Continuing Bush-era (and earlier) policies such as missile “defense†in Poland, drone strikes in Pakistan, sanctions on Iran and Cuba, and looking the other way in Israel-Palestine, validates those who argue nothing has changed in America.
Obama has demonstrated a preference for incrementalism, and to secure broad-based domestic agreement before any action, but opportunity does not serve at the pleasure of the president.
I think this is a great, broad and thoughtful article and appreciate it. But as a purview of world issues I do not understand this part-
"As much as war might be the proven solution to depressions past, Americans have grown weary and cynical over calls to arms and regime change over every looming international confrontation, and the rest of the world seems ready to embrace new directions as well."
I cannot see how the Iraq War was promoted, or even argued against, as a solution to a domestic economic crisis. Anyway, the kind of war that could do that is much bigger than the Iraq war could have been even if the regular army fought the invasion. Also, regime change in Iraq policy of USA did not originate with Bush's people, but in the 1990's with congress and Clinton. And be careful about speaking about what the "world" thinks. If anything, the calls for American interventions are no less than before, such as Darfur.
Obama passes the tea to the Russians: their pressure on IRAN will result in our lack of need for missle arsenals in Poland, who Bush said were aimed at IRAN nyet, the Russians never bought that, or anything else from the Obstinator's Past Military Presidential front.
IRAN's presidential election, with the high indication of replacement of "Whatshisdinijihad" will be the next important move. The Iranians are an educated progressive people, with an up and coming generation of globally conscious young citizens. True, The Ayatollah still drags the change back with fundamental religiosity, but if we allow them to continue movement in their time, the threat stands as much of a chance of resolution as it does progression.
Its the Military Industrialists, now having privatized the Camo Machine in to contract heaven, right down to aircraft maintenance. Oil and money, oil and money and we are just starting to derail their public fear train.
Israel needs to understand we will not fight their wars or pay their bills anymore. They need to make real and lasting reasonable concessions in a confrontation that will never change without them. But did you see the coldness between Netanyahu and Clinton? Probably doesn't help that Bush promised him we would join in a unilateral nuclear strike, huh?
The Russians aren't going to buy the missile defense against Iran nonsense from Obama, either. Sending that letter was silly. It just said to the Russians that nothing really changed from the last administration, as far as they are concerned.
The Iranians are also going to be looking very carefully at our remaining presence in Iraq. If we aren't careful about how we do it, if it really does look like something long term in the non-Kurdish areas, they could very easily decide to step up insurgent support again.
How about Cuba? We open them up, we get a market for our cars and TVs, I bet. And we could employ some of their doctors in some of our Latino areas which I'm sure are underserved.
Wow, did you realize how racist that comment was? Why would Cuban docs need to serve exclusively in "Latino areas"? How do you know they are "underserved"? How about Appalachia, which is definitely underserved?
I am certain that President Obama understands the relationship between US foriegn policy, the economy, and domestic issues. Perhaps, sooner or later, a greater percentage of the US public might come to the same understanding along with that of the media.
Going on eight years ago, this country's economic and military activity and positon in the world were attacked. Reasons why were explicit if one cares to jar their memory. Realignment was in order but instead it was same old and shop to save the country, business as usual.
Old behaviors are hard to change. The last eight years have produced sickening wealth, thievery, on all levels and once again those working/tring to provide for their families both in this country and abroad, trying to live decent lives, are the ones who have suffered due to military opperations that have been accelerated as oppossed to curtailed, used more wisely.
Instead of recognizing the violence in this world and how military presence and occupation fuels the hatred and anger of those all around living as animals, more military opperations and violence is poured upon the flames.
As much anger as all as this has produced even more depression, hopelessness, and sadness has resulted. As Human Beings, not as Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans, Russians, Mexicans, S. Americans; as human being it is long past time considering steps to get our acts together and consider alternative to bombing, shooting, killing, and all the vulgar acts some continue to exercise.
Exactly right. It's just the same cycle of the privileged few manipulating the less fortunate to keep them in power and make them richer and more powerful at the expense of the lives and futures of everyone else.
Almost everyone in the world wants the same thing: a safe place to live, enough to eat, a comfortable life, a good education, a secure future for themselves and those they care about, and to feel part of a community. We're just taught to hate and fear people who act and look different from us, but, really, we all want the same basic things.
"I am certain that President Obama understands the relationship between US foriegn policy, the economy, and domestic issues. "
He certainly does. His first move with his Secretary of State was to send her to China to make sure China continues to finance united States government budget deficits.
The higher price of oil the stonger they get. it is a no brainer if and when the economy gets stronger, eliminate our dependence on oil. Economics is the big stick when it comes to foreign policy and Russia and other oil rich countiries will be easier to negotiate if they do so out of weakness rather than strength.
Iran and Russia being strong states is not inherently bad, but having a single dominant source of wealth that is easily controlled by a small cabal that is the problem. If Russia and Iran were strong because they had diversified, active economies, that could actually be very good for us. Could also be bad if they go the China route and do it without pollution and safety controls, but it's not like they have those now, anyhow.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
