Amidst woes ranging from falling approval numbers to the derailing of his overly ambitious legislative program, the one major area where Barack Obama has received generally positive reviews is foreign policy. That is about to change, and in ways that will dramatically undermine America’s international reputation and influence.
In the eight years since 9/11 the cornerstones of U.S. Middle East policy have been military victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, denying nuclear weapons to Iran, and continuing strong support for Israel- our indispensable ally in the region. While there have certainly been significant ups and downs regarding all of these areas at least U.S. intentions were clear, as was our determination to persist.
Now owing to very mixed signals coming from the Obama administration regarding all four areas there is very serious doubt about U.S. intentions and willingness to persist.
In Afghanistan following the swift 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, U.S. forces- with significant help from NATO- maintained reasonable stability while encouraging the emergence of an effective democratic government. Now JCS Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen tells us the situation in Afghanistan is “deteriorating” and the newly appointed area commander general Stanley Mc Chrystal says we need to “rethink” our entire approach and get a “new strategy”.
While the general’s recent recommendations for that new strategy do not include additional U.S. troops, he almost certainly will make such a request in the future if only to counterbalance the steadily shrinking NATO contingent. Unquestionably that request will trigger a noisy uprising by left-wing Congressional Democrats who are hostile to Obama’s longstanding assertion that Afghanistan is the “right war” that we “must win”. Neither is Obama’s resolve likely to be helped by allegations of election fraud against the visibly corrupt regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai or polls which show sharply reduced American support for the war.
In Iraq- the “wrong war”- Obama wants out ASAP and will not be receptive to any requests for a slowdown in the rapidly accelerating U.S. withdrawal even if the painfully won achievements of the “Surge” are jeopardized.
Whatever the fate of Iraq’s fragile democracy that Shiia dominated country will never become a significant counterweight to Shiite Iran or a new pal for Israel.
As for Iran, ever since his much hyped but lamentable speech in Cairo, it has become increasingly clear that Obama views a nuclear armed thugocracy in Teheran as an imminent “fait accompli”. Indications are that the feeble face saving Plan B will be an offer to extend the U.S. defense umbrella across the Middle East to guarantee the security of our “friends” in that region.
What exactly that means in practice is quite unclear, but it is very clear that such an initiative in the Age of Obama and his passionately anti-military regime will have zero credibility. If Obama is unwilling to use force or even endorse Israel’s use of force against the clear and present danger of an imminently nuclear Iran who would ever trust their country’s security to his promises of future military assistance?
What military action would Obama take if Iranian proxies Syria and Hamas either reoccupied Lebanon or seized control of the West Bank? The short answer is: None.
In fact nothing short of an Iranian missile strike against Israel could induce Obama to authorize military force against an aggressor, and as the Israelis know all too well, that would be too little and too late.
Since May the proportion of Israelis who believe Obama is pro-Israel has dropped from 31% to 4%. Not hard to understand given the way Obama has bullied Israel into peace talks and demanded they make concessions (freezing West Bank settlements) in advance while requiring nothing of the Palestinians.
Obama’s fixation on peace talks, even when there is no unitary Palestinian authority to talk to, reflects a long standing left-wing article of faith that talking is the best answer to all problems.
Historically the policy focus of the Democratic Party has been domestic issues rather than global security and in their ideal world these annoying foreign “distractions” would be best left to the United Nations, or other multi-lateral entities.
Terrorists and tyrants alike are quite astute at reading those tea leaves of American politics, and no doubt they see clearly that with patience on their part and a little pressure here and there they may rely on the naïve and self-defeating behaviors of the Obama administration to unwittingly advance their nefarious agendas without serious risk to themselves.
Conversely, despairing friends like Israel who know a darkening horizon when they see one, wonder how America could change so much, so fast. Good question.
________________________________________________________________________
William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.
