Obama’s final legacy will be set by foreign policy

There has been a lot of handwringing over whether US President Barack Obama’s tone and message in the January State of the Union address and last week’s budget were too confrontational, dashing hopes for legislative and legacy-bolstering achievements. The reality: Congressional Republicans and the White House will score a few accomplishments this year because it is in the interests of both sides, regardless of the tone or specific proposals they embrace now.

As for the history books, the final quarter of this presidency — like most of its predecessors — will be enhanced or tarnished by foreign policy — an area where Obama has limited control.

There are many opportunities and problems confronting the president, including the prospect of completing the Trans- Pacific Partnership trade pact, which could be central to US economic involvement with Asia. But the big three issues that may keep the president awake at night are Iran, Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and Russia. “The president faces geopolitical challenges greater than any in our lifetime,” says Fred Kempe, president of the Atlantic Council, an international affairs research organisation. In a private session with Senate Democrats last month, Obama pointedly said that if Congress undercut any agreement he would demand a vote on an “interdiction” of Iran. This president’s history of rallying the public is not very encouraging.

There would be other grave consequences to the failure to reach an agreement. It is questionable whether the US could keep together the coalition imposing sanctions on Iran. Faced with the certainty that the Iranians would proceed with the development of nuclear weapons, the Israelis may want to strike if the US does not. A war with Iran would make the Iraq conflict seem like a Little League game.

Regarding Daesh, there have been mildly encouraging developments. Kurds retook the city of Kobani; the US air strikes have taken a toll and some funding from black market oil has been eliminated. But, Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative national security expert, says the picture remains bleak. With less than two years left in office, it would be virtually impossible for the administration to achieve the objective, enunciated by defence secretary-designate Ashton Carter, of a “lasting defeat” of Daesh.

Seeking relief

On Russia, President Vladimir Putin is showing no sign of backing down in Ukraine, despite biting economic sanctions. And, he is threatening to put pressure on Moldova and Azerbaijan. The need is to contain him on Ukraine and deter him elsewhere. If oil prices remain at low levels, some American strategists speculate that economic conditions will pinch Putin so hard that he will need to seek relief. But the pressure could also push him to be more bellicose. Moreover, Ukraine is an even worse economic basket case than Russia.

There are two widely divergent views of how all this could play out. The American exceptionalists say Obama is too passive and the next president, whether Hillary Clinton or a Republican, will have a better appreciation of the need for US global leadership and push a more assertive foreign policy. The other view is that America’s days as a global empire are numbered. In a new book, America in the Shadow of Empires, political scientist David Coates argues that the US is overextended militarily, imposing an additional burden on a fraying domestic economy and that a “measured and moderate” rollback of foreign entanglements is essential.

Obama’s final two years will be about trying to find a path between those two positions.

— Washington Post

Albert R. Hunt is a Bloomberg columnist.