A year after promising a fresh approach to US foreign policy by offering to engage foes like Iran, President Barack Obama is under pressure for results on an array of diplomatic initiatives.
By trying to pursue dialogue with Iran, pushing for better ties with Moscow and Beijing and reaching out to the Muslim world, Obama devoted much of the first year of his presidency to improving the tone of US relations abroad.
His message of a major break from the “cowboy diplomacy” of the George W. Bush years came across loud and clear. This year will likely bring fewer dramatic gestures and a greater focus on seeking tangible results, analysts said.
Can Obama persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions or if not, can he mobilize world powers to push for tougher sanctions on the Islamic Republic? Can he make progress with a recalcitrant North Korea? Can he keep tensions with China, the largest US creditor, from hindering cooperation? These questions loom as Obama seeks to wind down the Iraq war while escalating the conflict in Afghanistan.
“Great expectations have run into daunting challenges and the daunting challenges are winning,” said James Lindsay, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. “A lot of Year One of the Obama administration is the year of the word, or better yet the year of the speech,” said Lindsay, now with the Council on Foreign Relations. “He’s gone about as far as he can in terms of outlining his aspirations and now it’s time to turn word into deed.”
Domestic politics could limit Obama’s room to maneuver in foreign policy. Public anxiety over double-digit US unemployment and health-care reform have pushed Obama’s approval ratings below 50 percent versus 70 percent when he took office. Analysts say this fall in popularity limits Obama’s room for taking foreign policy risks, as do elections in November in which his Democrat party will seek to maintain its majorities in both houses of Congress.
Conservatives criticized Obama’s inaugural speech last year as naive for offering to extend a hand to adversaries like Iran and North Korea if they would “unclench” their fists. Those offers yielded no breakthroughs. The Iranian situation was complicated the growth of a popular opposition movement after a disputed presidential election on June 12.
While making clear his administration is still willing to talk to Iran, Obama is turning his focus toward sanctions. A resolution is expected to be unveiled in the United Nations Security Council within weeks. “They (the Iranian leadership) will still have an open door to change their relationship with the international community if they live up to their obligations,” said White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. Those obligations involve not only its nuclear program but its “responsibilities to its people under international norms,” he said.
White House officials say Obama never had illusions about Iran but his offer to talk was the right move because it has helped isolate Tehran’s hard-line leadership internationally. “We’re very happy with the results of the policy of engagement and I think that the misperception in certain quarters is that the engagement is one, an end in and of itself and two that the sole purpose of the engagement is to talk to the Iranian government,” Rhodes said. He said engagement “is a means to both communicate directly with the Iranian regime. It’s also more broadly the means through which we’ve been able to more broadly build international consensus around this issue, so that if you need to go to pressure, you’re in a much stronger position.”
Some Democrats and Republicans have been wary of what they see as a willingness to soft-pedal human rights issues, criticizing Obama’s initial muted reaction to protests that followed the disputed Iranian election. His decision in October to forego a meeting with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to avoid annoying China also drew criticism. Rights advocates say Obama’s pragmatism came at the expense of emphasizing human rights.
