Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

As Barack Obama prepares to take the oath of office, the conventional wisdom is that he faces the greatest challenge of any president since Franklin Roosevelt. It's easy to see why: the U.S. economy is in the most serious slump since the 1930s, and he had been handed a losing war in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. America's global image has fallen to unprecedented lows, and he won't have a lot of discretionary resources to throw at big global problems.

Yet not all is doom-and-gloom, and our current difficulties also present real opportunities if Obama is wise enough to seize them. What's the silver lining here?

First, the Bush administration's disastrous legacy is an obvious asset for Obama, because virtually any change from Bush's approach -- whether in style or in substance -- is likely to win kudos overseas. This benefit won't last if Obama's policies turn out to be more of the same, but for the moment it gives the new team a lot of running room.

Second, Obama is becoming President at a moment of relative peace and stability world-wide. This claim may seem surprising when we think of the past six years in Iraq and Afghanistan or the bad news from Darfur, Gaza, Pakistan, and elsewhere, but the reality is that overall level of global violence has declined sharply since the end of the Cold War. Even more importantly, the risk of major-power conflict is probably lower now than at any time in the past century. According to the Human Security Project at Simon Fraser University, the number of armed conflicts dropped dramatically from 1993 to 2006, and the average lethality of both state-based and non-state based conflicts (measured as number of fatalities per year) has also decreased steadily in recent decades. Although certain regions (e.g., Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa) have seen upticks in violence, the overall global trend is encouraging. The conflicts that are still underway are tragic and will require attention, but most of them do not pose a threat to vital U.S. interests.

Third, the economic problems that have hammered the United States have also affected our major rivals. It is not as if the U.S. economy is in free-fall while potential challengers are soaring. The current downturn also poses problems for China, has put a serious crimp in Moscow's ambitions, and compounded Iran's already-difficult economic situation. We would obviously be better off with a thriving economy, but the current recession is not a short-term threat to America’s core national security interests.

Fourth, Obama is taking office with high levels of support from a population that for the moment seems to have realistic expectations. The American people know we are in trouble and that it will take some time to fix the situation, a message that Obama has reinforced skillfully. The Democrats have solid control of the House and Senate, but their failure to win a veto-proof majority will force them to reach out to a few GOP members in order to advance their program. This reality will temper the far-left wing of the Democratic Party and make it harder for the far-right in the GOP to blame everything on Pelosi, Reid, and the new President.

Taken together, these various factors mean that President Obama has a great deal of latitude in the conduct of foreign policy. As I've written previously, our current circumstances will require the United States to set clearer priorities and stop trying to do everything. The good news is that the American people are likely to support this shift. Many foreign countries will welcome less heavy-handed U.S. leadership, while others will start working harder to keep us happy if we play hard-to-get more often.

Above all, the biggest mistake Obama could make would be to follow too closely in his predecessor's footsteps, or to pay too much attention to the people whose advice helped derail his predecessor. They might be excellent dinner companions, but their policy recommendations have been tried and the results are in.

There are still serious dangers out there, of course, and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy is not going to be easy. Here's one of my lingering worries: in the past, prolonged economic depressions have been fertile breeding grounds for hyper-nationalism, fascism, anti-Semitism, and other social and political pathologies. If similar movements were to re-emerge today, the comparatively low level of global violence that exists now -- especially among the major powers -- would be jeopardized. It follows that getting the U.S. and world economy back on track is a key national security priority, as important as any specific diplomatic initiative.

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty 

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

KEN

7:29 PM ET

January 20, 2009

[...]In the past, prolonged

[...]In the past, prolonged economic depressions have been fertile breeding grounds for hyper-nationalism, fascism, anti-Semitism, and other social and political pathologies. If similar movements were to re-emerge today, the comparatively low level of global violence that exists now -- especially among the major powers -- would be jeopardized.

I feel that analysis needs to take into account that no Western country has the demographic milieu for any strong political shift. Heinsohn on the Thirties .

“ 30 per cent between 15 and 29. This means that if you take 100 males from a country, then 30 of them will be between 15 and 29.” [...]
Heinsohn emphasises that there are lots of wars and killings in history that do nor emanate from youth bulges. The Hitler movement and the Mussolini movement in the 1920s can be explained as youth bulge phenomena. The early Nazis and Fascists had an average age a bit below 30.But by the time Hitler started WWII, many German families were down to only one son. So Hitler’s attack in 1939 was not a youth bulge phenomenon. Neither was the Holocaust. The killing of the Jews was not caused by young German men wanting to take their positions, even though there are theories that make this claim.

No Western power has the young people that are the basis for such movements, especially the ones you seem to have in mind like Russia, Germany and France (Heinsohn again I'm afraid)

France has 2 children per woman, but out of five newborns, two are already Arabic or African. In Germany 35 per cent of all newborns already have a non-German background,

The UK is no different, most schoolchildren in London are minority. So even with a war and recession (like WW1,Thirties) far worse than they are this is a non-starte

"Taken together, these various factors mean that President Obama has a great deal of latitude in the conduct of foreign policy "

It's evident from the dinner that Obama takes cognizance of a narrow spectrum of opinion.
The best guide to his thinking is Obama’s appointments, and they make it increasingly clear that he meant what he said: an nuclear Iranian is unacceptable

Wikipedia-
While not listed in his official biography, according to the “The Truth about Camp David” by Clayton Swisher, [Dennis]Ross co-founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1980s. [1]

Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel ?

His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, a Jerusalem-born pediatrician, was a member of the Irgun…. The surname Emanuel (??????), adopted by the family in honor of his father’s brother Emanuel Auerbach, killed in Jerusalem during a skirmish with Arabs, means God is with us.[...] Emanuel did not serve in the Israeli army, but was a civilian volunteer assisting the Israel Defense Forces for a short time during the 1991 Gulf War, repairing truck brakes in one of Israel’s northern bases with Sar-El.

These key appointees will surely advise Obama to attack Iran unless it capitulates and abandons it’s nuclear program. I think Obama will end up ordering a massive airstrike on Iran.

 

DIMITRIJEVIC

9:46 PM ET

January 20, 2009

Iran does not respond well to cajoling and threats

That is a fundamental aspect of the Iranian national character that Americans refuse to grasp.

....the economic problems that have hammered the United States have also....compounded Iran's already-difficult economic situation.

The national priorities inside Iran are:

1.) The nuclear program

2.) The defense program (especially long range missile development and improvement of range, accuracy and payload).

Weaknesses in the Iranian economy will be suffered and inflation will be tolerated without much affect on the funding for the above.

Having traveled to the country and being acquainted with several nationals who still reside there the question of persuading the Iranian government to forego nuclear enrichment is out of the question in my opinion. There is no "carrot" within the realm of reason that the Iranian government considers valuable enough to halt its program. They're too far along with their technical progress to voluntarily abandon it now. It's become an effort of national pride and identity and many or most Iranians deeply resent being told that they should not or cannot continue. If for no other reason than they're being told not to do it by an American President and politicians they're going to proceed, and proceed with virtually full funding regardless of how well their domestic economy performs.

I would be surprised if Obama, in his heart of hearts genuinely believes that the United States has enough to offer the Persians in order to convince them to halt their nuclear enrichment program. I think he's a realist and he does not believe America does. His public speechifying is likely political rhetoric only.

The next question is does Obama care enough about the issue to go to war with Iran over it? I suspect he does not nor does he want to be dragged into it by the Israelis. In light of the current economic crisis he wants to put the entire matter in limbo into the near future. Therefore he will probably continue to guardedly encourage talks with the Iranian government, then obliquely threaten it while at the same time denying Israel permission to fly through Iraqi airspace. That the only practical route, geographically and politically from Israel to Iran.

 

BLUE13326

1:30 AM ET

January 21, 2009

I agree almost totally with

I agree almost totally with your analysis Dimitrijevic, although I'm not convinced yet that Obama is enough of a realist to accept it. Rather, I think he will try the failed N. Korea route with the same results.

 

BRETT

2:22 AM ET

January 21, 2009

Unfortunately, I agree. I

Unfortunately, I agree. I think one of the big diplomatic battles for the Obama administration vis a vis the Middle East won't be trying to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon - it will be keeping the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and others from developing their own nuclear weapons and starting a regional arms race.

 

BALTIMORON

11:28 AM ET

January 21, 2009

On what part of the current

On what part of the current announcements do you base this conclusion? The Obama administration is keeping multilateral talks and considering bilateral talks. I assume that means public, not secret meetings in New Jersey pizza parlors. According to Laura Rozen, Chris Hill might return, but his two jobs as negotiator and Asst. Secretary will be split. And, most importantly, the Obama administration wants to revamp the NPT.

 

KALAMANDO

7:16 AM ET

January 22, 2009

How did "34th US President - IKE" Conduct Foreign Policy?

34th US President IKE suspended AID TO ISRAEL
“Ike” = Dwight David Eisenhower American general & the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961). As far as WAR & PEACE issues; IKE had the richest experience of all US presidents!
In WWII he was the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (1943-1945) he launched the invasion of Normandy (June 6, 1944) and oversaw the final defeat of Germany (1945).
Ike cared about the STRATEGIC WELL BEING of Israel because HE was aware that the creation of Israel was the ultimate answer to European anti-Anti-Semitism.
On October 31, 1956 Ike’s presidency was marked by SUSPENSION OF US AID to ISRAEL in protest at its invasion of Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
In an emergency session of the United Nations (UN) November 1-2 1956 General Assembly was called to consider the Suez Crisis. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES, ATTACKED the British–French–Israeli ACTION, and the Assembly votes for a cease-fire!
Britain & France complied promptly, but ISRAEL did not; until January 22, 1957 when Israeli forces completed their withdrawal.

 

KALAMANDO

7:20 AM ET

January 22, 2009

Ike's Foreign policy

Ike's Foreign policy guaranteed a "NO WAR" situation for a full decade - from 1957 to 1967 - Ain't EZ

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More