Type to search

Election Setbacks For Obama May Embolden Foreign Adversaries

McClatchy Tribune News Service National News Politics World

Election Setbacks For Obama May Embolden Foreign Adversaries


By Paul Richter, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Presidents from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton have turned to foreign policy in their final months in office when their domestic agendas have been stymied. For Barack Obama, that overseas pivot may offer little relief.

As he headed out Sunday on a weeklong trip to China, Myanmar and Australia, the stinging repudiation Obama suffered in last week’s midterm elections is likely to dishearten friends and embolden foreign adversaries, analysts say.

Come January, he will face a Republican-dominated Congress whose leaders appear determined to take foreign policy in a more hawkish, more interventionist direction.

“The pummeling he’s taking is creating the perception abroad that a president who was headed for lame-duck status is even less relevant,” said Aaron David Miller, a U.S. diplomat from 1978 to 2003, and author of “The End of Greatness,” a book about the limits of presidential power.

White House aides, in internal meetings, are mapping out plans to expand Obama’s efforts abroad in his final two years in office. They say his authority as chief executive allows him to act without a specific congressional mandate in several sensitive areas, such as easing some sanctions on Iran.

The White House has set challenging policy goals: sealing a nuclear deal with Iran, strengthening an unproven government in Afghanistan, mobilizing an international coalition against Islamic State militants, reaching regional trade deals in Asia and Europe, and turning Russia from adversary to ally.

Foreign leaders, always keenly sensitive to the political strength of U.S. presidents, took note of the White House losses last week.

Obama has evolved “from the president of hope to the president of disappointment,” Alexei Pushkov, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, or lower house of the parliament, told the Tass news agency.

Putin, angry that the United States and Europe have imposed sanctions on Russia over Ukraine, has shown no sign of backing down. In recent weeks, Moscow has sent a series of provocative military flights into European airspace.

The Kremlin also said last week that it won’t take part in the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit, which seeks to strengthen international controls to prevent terrorists from gaining access to nuclear materials. Obama initiated the summits in 2010.

Because Russia is one of the largest potential sources of such material, Moscow’s boycott is a blow to the nonproliferation effort Obama hoped would be an important part of his legacy.

The election setback also did not go unnoticed in Beijing, where Obama will meet this week with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The two leaders have sparred over cybersecurity, trade and China’s growing military assertiveness in the South China Sea, and China has criticized Obama’s efforts to boost America’s military presence in the western Pacific in a “rebalance” of U.S. forces.

The GOP success means “the lame-duck president will be further crippled,” wrote the pro-government Global Times newspaper in Beijing. “U.S. public opinion has downgraded Obama.”

The Republican sweep also could bolster Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has clashed with Obama over White House efforts to ease Israeli-Palestinian tension.

Robert Danin, a former U.S. diplomat in the Middle East, said that domestic American politics isn’t the crucial factor in Netanyahu’s calculations, but the shift in Washington’s political landscape “could embolden him.”

Republican control of the Senate also could complicate Obama’s efforts to complete a nuclear deal with Iran this month, a foreign policy goal his aides consider as important to his White House legacy as his 2010 health care initiative.

Obama has considerable leeway to work around Congress in implementing a nuclear deal, which would ease economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for systems to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb.

But if Congress believes the deal is a poor one, it could mobilize to block it.

Republican skeptics, including Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is to take over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, already are planning legislation that could threaten the negotiating effort by adding new sanctions on Iran or giving Congress more leverage over the deal.

Republican hawks also will be ascendant. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is expected to lead the Senate Armed Services Committee, is likely to push the White House to step up the military campaign against Islamic State, and to begin providing arms and ammunition to the government in Ukraine, among other issues.

Obama may still have the upper hand in those disputes.

But there’s likely to be an ugly fight over Obama’s request, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, to seek congressional authorization for the bombing campaign against Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq.

As a result, he may find it harder to persuade Turkey, Qatar and other members of the coalition battling the Sunni militants to provide money or military help.

And he doesn’t have some of the assets of previous presidents, such as strong personal relationships with world leaders, analysts say.

“The problem is with him (is) he’s just not strong on that,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written extensively on the National Security Council.
Still, Obama will have it easier in some areas.

One is the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership regional free trade agreement, another White House priority. The accord, which is still being negotiated, faces Democratic opposition in Congress. Republican leaders say they will give the deal a major push if negotiations succeed.

And analysts note that Obama’s fortunes could shift abruptly if he successfully manages a sudden terrorist danger, or manages to seal a good nuclear deal with Iran, thus neutralizing a major security threat.

That “would make a real difference for him,” said Miller, the former U.S. diplomat, who is a vice president with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank in Washington.

AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski

Interested in more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter.



  1. Lt. Wolfe November 10, 2014

    Americans need to remember that Obama’s criminal regime left four Americans to die in Benghazi and viciously tried to deny health care to ten year old Sarah Murnaghan.

    1. JPHALL November 10, 2014

      What are you talking about? What criminal regime? What drugs are you taking or nor taking? Benghazi is, and was a non-issue. And who or what was the issue with Sarah Murnaghan. How does Obama affect her medical care?

      1. Dominick Vila November 11, 2014

        If Benghazi is a evidence of wrongdoing or ineptitude, I wonder how Lt. Wolfe feels about 9/11 and the eleven terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities when they were in control of the White House and Congress?
        As for President Obama denying healthcare to a child, I consider claims like that at the same level as claiming that our First Lady is a transsexual, and that the Obama children were born in Morocco. The rhetoric we hear from the far right is evidence of ethnic and cultural intolerance, hatred, and ignorance. The best thing to do when confronted with people like him is to ignore him.

        1. JPHALL November 11, 2014

          Yes, you are correct. I always hope that eventually one of the right wingers would actually come up with something that supported their posts not mere commentary.
          Subject: Re: New comment posted on Election Setbacks For Obama May Embolden Foreign Adversaries

          1. Dominick Vila November 12, 2014

            Foreign adversaries, and foreigners at large, don’t base their economic and geo-political strategies on internal American politics. For them, both parties are pretty much the same, and they look at us with suspicion regardless of which party is in control, or whether or not we have a divided government.

            Assuming that China or Russia, for example, will change their strategy and relationships with us because the GOP has control of Congress is a sign of naivete and/or arrogance on our part. One of the things I learned during my 30 years abroad is that the world does not evolve around the USA, although there is no question that the world catches a cold when our economy sneezes, and that they keep a close eye on our military adventurism. They do what they believe is best for their interests, regardless of who is in charge in the USA. Needless to say, from a political perspective, foreign leaders do pay attention to the leadership qualities and record of our leaders. In that regard, the reception that President Obama got in China a few days ago, and the fact that President George W. Bush and VP Cheney cannot travel to most foreign countries for fear of being arrested and charged with crimes against humanity, may offer a glimpse of how our leaders, and their actions, are viewed by other governments, and the population of the world at large.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.