Obama’s Touch

When Barack Obama took office last year, he told his political advisers that he had two baskets of issues that must be dealt with. The first was of issues inherited from his predecessor, Bush, including Iraq, Afghanistan and America’s image in the world. The second was of issues on the scale of his works and his own vision.

As the Herald Tribune mentioned, Obama goes forth, after fifteen months of addressing inherited issues, towards his dream and defining himself more clearly in the international arena. In light of this framework, the nuclear summit, which ended Tuesday represents a chance for Obama to assure his leadership rather than a mere assertion that he is not George W. Bush.

As the former diplomat Nancy Soderberg believes, “Obama started to return to the agenda he wants to conduct.” She added that his legacy at the local level is linked to the health care program that was launched a few days ago, but his legacy on foreign policy is linked to nuclear non-proliferation.

The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington came after weeks of further progress in international affairs, where Obama chased assumptions that he is internationally weak. In this context, he refused to surrender to Russian demands about Washington’s limitation options in the area of missile shields and he made a treaty to reduce nuclear weapons — which could, though modest, bring better relations with Moscow on the international stage.

At the same time, President Obama held difficult talks with the Israeli and Afghani leaders, while confronting a crucial test on his ability to form a coalition that can impose new sanctions on Iran. In recent days, despite his withdrawal from a clash with Karzai, he gave, in his press conference that concluded the nuclear summit, a strong signal on his continued determination to impose himself again in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In his description of that conflict as a potential threat to U.S. security, Obama seems to have adopted the warning of his military commander in the Middle East, General David Petraeus, wherein Petraeus stated that the problems of the region have created a dangerous environment for U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and other places.

He said that vital national interests of the United States require curbing such conflicts because America, willingly and unwillingly, is a superpower that is involved in conflicts where, in one way or another, they cost the state a lot of blood and money.

Obama has learned important lessons about his ability to persuade others. For example, he learned how difficult it is to bring Israelis and Palestinians together on close terms, and about his style in administering the Iranian crisis, which has not resulted in Tehran’s cooperation with him.

Many analysts perceive Obama to be following a realistic approach in dealing with international issues, though his treaty with Russia and the nuclear summit constitute the beginnings of a special touch of his own on the international level. In all cases, this touch will not be sufficient if he fails to control the Israeli settlements, on the one hand, and, on the other, to produce an internationally successful and moderate consensus on how to address Iran’s nuclear program.