President Obama promised a new day in foreign affairs. The president’s vision would inspire bold initiatives to take the world beyond the false choices, and resulting quagmires, of the past. Friend and foe alike would see the United States in a different light and, riding our newfound popularity, we would reshape the world.
There were skeptics, of course. The world cannot so easily be remade, they warned. Old modes of thinking die hard. Long-standing feuds persist.
Less than a year into his presidency, though, it appears that Obama was right. We have already witnessed major changes that were almost unthinkable in January.
Consider Israel, a country at the center of Obama’s hopes for a new day in foreign policy. U.S. relations with Israel have had their bumps, but Israeli trust of America and respect for its president – whether Nixon or Carter, Clinton or George W. Bush – have been constant.
As a result, Israeli prime ministers have found it prudent to remain on good terms with the U.S. president. This was true even of those crusty old war horses, Yitzak Shamir and Ariel Sharon. It can be argued that when a brash young Benjamin Netanyahu got on President Clinton’s bad side, the price was his office.
But in nine months all of this has changed. A recent survey sponsored by the Jerusalem Post showed that only 4 percent of Israelis believe President Obama’s policies are more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian. Considering that the margin of error in the poll was 4.5 percent, one begins to wonder whether any Israeli, or at least any Israeli Jew, believes Obama is on the side of America’s long-time ally.
Fifty-one percent of those polled consider Obama’s policies more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel. When more than half of the Israeli population believes that America’s president tilts toward their sworn enemy, it’s fair to say that Obama has produced a sea change in this small yet important corner of the world.
This is only the beginning of “change we can scarcely believe” in Israel. For decades Israelis have been bitterly divided over politics, often more or less down the middle. Throughout much of this period, Netanyahu has been among the most divisive Israeli politicians.
When Netanyahu formed a largely “right-wing” coalition government earlier this year, his regime seemed extremely fragile, even by Israeli standards. But then the Obama administration (1) insisted that Israel halt all new construction in West Bank settlements, including construction of new homes within large settlements to accommodate natural population growth and (2) objected to the building of new apartments in East Jerusalem.
When Netanyahu pushed back, his popularity soared. Obama had transformed the least lovable of all Israeli politicians into a leader around whom a strong majority of Israelis could rally.
In foreign affairs, many actions produce an equal and opposite reaction. Obama probably hoped that any Israeli reaction against his policies would coincide with an equally strong reaction in his favor in the Arab world.
In foreign affairs, many actions produce an equal and opposite reaction. Obama probably hoped that any Israeli reaction against his policies would coincide with an equally strong reaction in his favor in the Arab world.
But while Israelis judged Obama by his words, the Arabs judged him by his results. Thus, when the Netanyahu government refused to halt construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Arab world judged him harshly.
Now, the administration is trying desperately to cobble together a compromise on settlement construction. But no face-saving compromise will obscure the fact that Obama has squandered America’s credibility on both sides of the Middle East divide to a degree that shocks those of us who doubted his ability to produce dramatic change.
In the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern and Central Europe, the United States has long been viewed with the same high regard as in Israel. And for similar reasons: We have provided moral and material support that helps these nations survive and prosper as independent entities in a dangerous neighborhood.
These nations, in turn, have gone out on the limb for the United States. Poland and the Czech Republic in particular have been stalwart partners in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“So let me be clear,” Obama intoned, “the Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against [Iranian missiles]. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile-defense system that is cost-effective and proven.”
Even so, the Czechs and the Poles sensed they were destined for a difficult time in Obama’s remade world. Polls demonstrated their diminished faith in the United States and its new president.
The uneasiness was justified. This week, in the face of pressure from Russia, the Obama administration announced it would not go forward with the missile shield program in Eastern Europe after all.
A spokeswoman for the Polish Ministry of Defense put it bluntly: “This is catastrophic for Poland.” And not just for Poland. As the editors of National Review remarked, America’s lack of resolve in the face of Russian saber-rattling has sent a chilling message throughout the region, notably to Georgia and Ukraine.
Obama undoubtedly hopes that this latest “finger in the eye” of an ally will produce a favorable “opposite reaction” in Russia. But handing strategic concessions to the Kremlin in exchange for nothing grants the Russians a victory that will only embolden their leaders and force neighboring countries to bend to their will.
Obama has indeed “reset” U.S. relations with Russia. But, as with Israel, he has done so by squandering U.S. influence and credibility, and by antagonizing close friends.
It turns out that the United States can alienate its long-standing allies with stunning swiftness. Whether our adversaries can be won over as a result is another matter.
Sunday Reflection contributor Paul Mirengoff is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and a principal author of Powerlineblog.com.
