President Obama on Tuesday night defended his much-maligned foreign policy in his State of the Union speech, even as one of its “successes” unraveled half a world away in Yemen and other dangers loomed.
“The shadow of crisis has passed,” Obama said, noting that his approach had made the nation safer after almost 15 years of war and terrorism.
“I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now — and around the globe, it is making a difference,” he said, challenging his critics to look to the future.
“Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?”
But even as he spoke, U.S. efforts against al Qaeda in Yemen faced collapse as Shiite Houthi rebels cornered President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi in his home and Navy warships stood by for a possible evacuation of U.S. personnel, according to news reports. This comes just days after the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed credit for the Jan. 7 terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 people.
Obama cited the U.S. approach in Yemen as a success in the fight against terrorism when he outlined his strategy against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in a Sept. 10 speech, and on Tuesday insisted that strategy was working.
“In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping [the Islamic State’s] advance,” he said.
But it’s been widely reported that the Islamic State has gained territory in Syria since the U.S.-led bombing campaign to “degrade and destroy” the group started. And the administration’s focus on getting a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program has complicated matters in that country, where Tehran’s ally, President Bashar al Assad, is the main focus of the resistance groups Washington wants to enlist as a ground force against the Islamic State.
“We’ve got to decide how we’re going to deal with Assad,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters.
Meanwhile, Iran signed a defense cooperation agreement with Russia on Tuesday. Both countries already are the target of U.S. sanctions, and the agreement may make it more difficult for Washington to pressure either government.
“Reality has overtaken the wishful thinking on Pennsylvania Avenue,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said, adding that Obama “has not adequately addressed our national security needs.”
Obama’s handling of crises over the past year, such as the rise of the Islamic State and Russian aggression in Ukraine, has significantly eroded support for his foreign policy.
Only 37 percent of respondents in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll approved of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, a rebound from the low point of 31 percent in October, but still less than before 2014. The Jan. 14-15 poll of 800 adults had a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points.
And the erosion isn’t just among the public. Many members of the foreign policy establishment who backed Obama, and even in some cases advised him, have abandoned the cause.
“In the end, making the national security system work comes down to one factor, one man: Barack Obama. He’s the key problem, and he’s the only one who can bring about a solution,” Council on Foreign Relations Chairman Leslie H. Gelb wrote last week in the Daily Beast, calling for a top-to-bottom shakeup of the president’s foreign policy team.
Nowhere is the president’s loss of credibility more evident than on Iran, where a bipartisan effort to impose new sanctions in the event nuclear talks break down is likely to pass in Congress by a wide margin in spite of Obama’s veto threat, because lawmakers from both parties mistrust the administration’s negotiating strategy.
Obama repeated his veto threat in Tuesday’s speech, saying: “New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails – alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.
“The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom,” he added – a line that is sure to anger lawmakers who believe there are other options to keep Iran in check.
