BALOONING DEFICIT, INABILITY TO FLEX MILITARY MUSCLE, FALLING RATINGS PUT OBAMA IN TIGHT SPOT – MAY SURPRISE PEOPLE WITH A DIFFERENT PERSONA

Let’s start with President Obama’s list of predicaments regarding international issues that is enabling his political detractors to portray him as a wimp:

De-nuclearization of Iran: United States is trying its best to avoid any option of use of force. Reason: With 17 trillion dollar deficit, US is virtually broke. It simply does not have money to spend on any military excursion – even the minor ones will add to the back breaking penury of US. Moreover, there is tremendous aversion in the American public toward another direct involvement. Furthermore, in case of Iran, any military option, which should be perhaps be a recourse of last resort, to be effective would need to be at a scale which would be prohibitively expensive for America and too heavy for war-weary American people’s will.

As a result, US is trying to tough talk its way to some face saving outcome with Iran. But, unfortunately, Iran apparently knows the monetary constraints of US to engage in any military action and would take advantage of the same anticipating correctly the trajectory of American diplomatic maneuverings of Kerry and the like.

However, a lot of American politicians from both sides of the isle are apprehensive of and uncomfortable with the approach US is adopting and do not seem to be very optimistic about a meaningful outcome. The Democrat front-runner of 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton has said (as reported by NBC News website) “The odds of reaching that comprehensive agreement are not good,” Clinton said, per the Washington Post. “I am also personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver. I have seen their behavior over the years…”.

Syrian crisis: US policy on Syria has been predicated on being hesitant to get directly involved, again, due to virtual financial bankruptcy of the US economy and war weariness of the American people. President Obama said Syria had “red line” when Assad regime used chemical weapons against the rebels. The world thought US would take some punitive actions through air strikes but at the last moment Obama went to the Congress to seek authorization for such an action which was turned down (by the Congress) as expected. There was huge disappointment with the ‘hawkish’ elements, like, Republican Senator John McCain and others. Obama looked timid, dithering and mousy.

The Assad regime seems to be reclaiming territories lost to the rebels. However, it is said that Obama administration’s reluctance toward any deeper involvement stems from presence of Muslim extremist elements fighting against Assad’s forces. It seems Obama administrations would prefer less extremist minded Assad prevail rather than Al-Qaida or Taliban type forces to win – this may not be a bad idea but unfortunately, for Obama, his detractors do not want to see that way.

Ukraine crisis: Russians have annexed Crimea and are now seem to be consolidating their position in the newly acquired region. The US and the European allies have imposed sanctions and articulated lot of tough sounding verbiage. However, all this does not seem to have caused any perceptible impact on Putin and his coterie. Obama detractors in the US are, again, criticizing him imputing Putin’s actions to his alleged ‘weak’ stance at the international stage.

It must be said that there was simply nothing that US or the Europeans could do in Crimea because of proximity between Russia and Crimea, and logistical challenges for the western powers to undertake any preventive action militarily. The only thing that may, however, be pointed out is that West was probably too lost in the euphoria and celebration of having caused the pro-Russian President of Ukraine and his cronies to flee, and failed to anticipate Russian reaction to it. The West remained oblivious of Russia’s sensitivities to developments in Ukraine which Russia considers as their backyard and also the century old historical linkages between the two.

US troops presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014: President Obama has yet to make a decision on the size of a post-2014 US force in Afghanistan after a 13-year war that has become highly unpopular among the American public. Outgoing President Karzai surprised the international community and many Afghans in December 2013 when he ignored the recommendation of an assembly of tribal leaders and other dignitaries to sign it, saying he would leave the final decision to his successor after 5 April elections.

A bipartisan delegation of US Senators to Afghanistan called on President Barack Obama this week to announce a decision on his plans for future troop levels in the country, on the assumption a much-delayed security pact eventually will eventually be signed with Kabul. One of the delegation members, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a Republican, said Obama should not wait for that to give an idea of what the US presence would look like after the Nato-led combat mission ends at the end of this year. This issue is confounding Obama and his reticence on the subject is providing ammunition to his opponents to criticize him for his indecisiveness.

Then there are some other issues that is causing headache to Obama:

Strains in relations with Israel: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is not very happy with the American policy trajectory on Iran and pressure on Israel to make some hard choices before 29^th April toward resolution of Israel-Palestine imbroglio.

Since the global powers reached an interim agreement with Iran last November, Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran have been largely ignored. A frustrated Israeli leadership now appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to take a tough position in its negotiations with Iran. A front-page headline in the daily Haaretz this week reported that Netanyahu has ordered “to prep for strike on Iran in 2014” and has allocated US$2.87 billion for the groundwork. Earlier this week, Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon hinted that Israel would have to pursue a military strike on its own, with the U.S. having chosen the path of negotiations.

Whether Israel would translate its rhetoric in action remains to be seen and seems improbable, nevertheless the above mentioned developments were meant to jolt the global powers as a wake-up call.

Drop in approval ratings: Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in March shows President Obama's job approval moved down to 41% in March from 43% in January, marking a new low. Some 54% disapproved of the job he is doing, matching a previous high from December, when the botched roll-out of his signature health law played prominently in the news. The latest survey also showed the lowest-ever approval in Journal/NBC polling for Mr. Obama's handling of foreign policy.

Democrats’ worry about losing Senate in November elections: As per NBC News, prominent figures still associated with President Obama and his White House team are sounding the alarm bell that the Democratic Party could lose the Senate -- if not more -- in November. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Democrats’ control of the Senate was “definitely” in danger.

NBC News also reports that due to falling approval rating of Obama some vulnerable Democrats are already shunning Obama’s assistance. The president reportedly acknowledged his lackluster approval ratings during his meeting with Senate Democrats at a retreat recently.

The Democrat candidates Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina are especially keen on distancing themselves from Obama because of his overt opposition to Keystone XL pipeline project. The above mentioned four senators joined the Canadian Ambassador to US, labor union leaders and others in February this year to express support for this project. Obama has stated that he would give his decision by end of April. If he rejects this project, these four senators’ political future and Democrats’ hopes of retaining majority in Senate would be almost surely be compromised.

‘Weight’ of Nobel Peace Prize: President Obama seems to be continually weighed down by Nobel Peace Prize conferred on him – he seems to be struggling with himself on every issue that involves potential of military option; he seems to feel hand cuffed and suffer from dissonance within himself due to this prize (and unsaid expectation that came with it). As well, Obama seems to be very worried about the legacy he would leave behind and how history would judge him on various issues – be it US interventionism, or stand on environment, or bipartisanship at Capitol Hill and so on.

So, what might Obama do now? It is quite clear that President Obama needs to do something different to shake off the following perception:

·       Professorial, less of a man in command at helm

·       Speaks too much (from scripted speeches)

·       More words, less of actual action (esp. regarding international matters)

·       Afraid of re-calibrating his stance on issues (which explains his being fearful of environmental lobby)

·       Paralysis by over analysis

·       Unreliable, shifty, dithering, indecisive

·       Worried about legacy and Nobel Peace Prize expectation

In order to deal with the above mentioned perception issues and not get relegated to being a lame duck president for two years, Obama needs to change tack, take decisive stands (e.g., he should okay Keystone XL instead of being cowed down by some of his so-called donors). Hopefully, the Democrats would see an invigorated, crisp, concise, bold person who is not worried about how history will judge him. After all, two years is too long a period to remain in a semi-retired ineffectual state waiting for the term to be over. One is remembered in history not because one shied away from unpopular stands but because one overcame one’s shyness to take a right stand.

WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA WANT TO LEAVE BEHIND A LEGACY OF BOTCHED UP RELATIONS WITH SOME OF AMERICA’s CLOSEST ALLIES?

Based on conventional knowledge, the following countries have been some of the closest allies of United States (in no particular order):

-     Canada

-     Israel

-     Saudi Arabia

As situation stands today, the above countries are feeling frustrated, upset with and mistrustful of United States. Let’s look at each of them why this is so:

Canada: There are very close ties between the US and Canada in terms of trade (NAFTA), cultural relationship and military cooperation/alliance, e.g., NORAD. At international level, Canada and the US share membership of G-7, G-20, Asia-Pacific economic cooperation and many more. Canada is a stable, democratic country and, arguably, has been a trusted friend/partner of the US since the World Wars. But in the recent past, the actions on part US have been continually demonstrating huge negativity toward Canada. The main fly in the ointment has been the pipeline projects that emanate from Canada and end up inside the US, especially, the Keystone XL project. This project is being evaluated by US authorities for the last 5 years – and President Obama, for some strange reason, has made this project as a scapegoat of his pro-environment stance.

It is okay to be worried about global warming but to hold clearance of a pipeline project (which is supposed to transport only 830,000 bbl/day of bitumen from Canada) on the premise that it would be cleared only if it does not ‘significantly add to GHG emission’  is utterly nonsensical. That this notion was indeed utterly stupid has been corroborated by the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012 Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, issued by the US State Department on 31^st January 2014. One has to be an outstandingly stubborn moron to not approve this project which is clearly not going to have any significant impact on environment. Remember, on this project a lot hinges as far as Canadian economy is concerned. As well, mind you, Canada is far stricter in terms of environment regulations than the various countries, like, China, who are dumping huge amounts of GHG.

It is simply Obama’s obstinacy, and perhaps nothing else, which is standing in the way of approval of this project. The question is: Why should US display this kind of obstinacy, and consequently sour up relations with a trusted partner, especially, at a time when US is increasingly finding it reduced in stature and/or ineffective in various current international scenarios? US is being snubbed, rebuked, ignored, shown the middle finger by friends and foes alike – whether  it is Syrian crisis or Ukraine upheaval or the China/Japan tension over  Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Instead of having a trusted friend, like, Canada alongside at this juncture, the US would appear to be willy nilly hell bent on screwing up that nice, warm, cordial relationship. And for what? Just to placate a small section of democrat supporters who anyway are so fanatical that it is impossible to reason out with them on environment issues?  Whether this fanaticism is based on some quid pro quo and/or some sort of incentivizing, that’s a separate matter? But this motley crowd is too small a cause for which a long standing, time tested friendship should be sacrificed!! But, unfortunately, then, the dithering Obama has allowed himself to be led by his nose by this motley crowd, or, so it seems!

Israel: Ties between Israel and the US are historic in nature and the Americans have always let the world know from the roof tops that US is the closest ally of Israel. But of late, the policy trajectories the current US administration seem to be following with respect to Middle East and Iran have been irritating Israel more than anything else. They seem to be so pissed off that recently the Israeli Defense Minister rebuked John Kerry in one of the strongest languages rarely seen in diplomatic talk and certainly unheard of between these two countries. Again, the question to ask would be: Why the hell US is doing this? Is it because the chip Obama carries on his shoulder – the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it because he wants to leave a legacy of a peace-maker even if it means steam rolling over Israel’s concerns? The US policy on Iran has also riled up Israel. Reason? Because, the Israelis maintain that it is absolutely unclear whether the agreements with Iran can REALLY be verified. Moreover, Russia has already started providing financial succor to Iran which would thence enable it to negotiate from a relatively stronger position than before.

It is clear that the US is almost beseeching the heavens for some kind of face saving agreement with Iran because of its virtual financial bankruptcy and inability to fight another war. But, from Israel’s perspective, these constraints should not conspire to dump an agreement on the concerned parties (i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia) which they are not comfortable with. The back channel talks between the US and Iran in Oman did not go down very well with the above-mentioned two countries.

Further, Iran is known to be experts in double speak – this coupled with the embarrassing inability of US intelligence to monitor things within Iran renders overseeing, policing and enforcing any agreement with Iran completely doubtful and useless. No wonder, Israelis are concerned and incensed over American unilateralism and head in the sand approach. The Israelis see this as, again, an obstinate Obama’s desperate attempt to achieve something, which his Republican predecessor could not, and pat his own back (and have some material for the so-called historians to write later).

One can’t say for sure what the outcome will be of the above mentioned efforts of the US in the Middle East, but one thing is for sure, their relations with Israel (and Saudi Arabia) have hit unprecedented low. The US has succeeded in pissing off one their much avowed closest allies in the region. And, what is the real gain for the US in all this? Have they (the Americans) accounted for the loss of trust equity in all this?

Saudi Arabia: This close ally of the US is terribly upset because of Syrian policy followed by President Obama. The Saudis are so upset that Obama is travelling to that country in March to mend relations. The Saudis’ actions in the Syrian theater have apparently made it clear to the US that the Saudis can play spoil sport in Syrian imbroglio and without their support some of the anti-Assad factions can NOT be corralled. The Saudis are also upset over the way the US is handling the Iran matter. They see this is an attempt by the US to counterbalance their (Saudis) Sunni influence in the region. They have also not liked the US’s stance and countenance vis-à-vis Qatar’s activities in Syria and Egypt.

Clearly, the Obama administration has ended up screwing up relations with another of its close ally by following some policy trajectories which are not only seeming to be ineffective but giving more time to the adversaries of Saudi Arabia and Israel in recovering/recouping – this applies to the current regimes in Syria and Iran. This does not bode well from Israel’s and Saudi’s perspective; obviously, they are badly cut up with the Obama administration.

Summary: The current US administration has probably forgotten that loud talks mean nothing in international diplomacy if they can’t be demonstrably backed up by force. The US is being increasingly perceived to be a groveling patsy – be it with respect to Iran, China, or Syria issue – trying to further its own interests without bothering whether or not it destroys time-tested relations with some of its closest allies. US is also being perceived as someone who starts with a loud mouth but ends up in a whimper with no matching guts to provide any teeth to their big pronouncements (“Syria has crossed a red line”, the famous line Obama spoke!). No wonder Kerry is at pains to explain, time and again, in international forums that US is not retreating from global issues. 

Clearly, the current administration’s policies towards Canada and Israel in particular have been baffling to say at the very best and bull-headed at the worst. Obama and his cronies have been continually needling these two countries on some frivolous and some not so frivolous pretexts. In all this, what has the US achieved? Not only it is risking serious damage to the friendly relations with these two countries, it is sowing seeds of deliberate miscalculations in its policy making which could potentially backfire on the US in the long run. Is it sign of intelligent policy implementation strategy or sign of a stubborn gutless loser who is desperate to leave behind some legacy which he can trumpet about later as unprecedented achievements  never mind even if they came at the cost of screwing up long standing friendships, or bringing NO REAL benefit to the US over the longer term?