Obama’s Foreign Policy and the Democrats’ Defeat

Recently, U.S. President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party suffered a major electoral defeat in the midterm elections for members of Congress. The Republican Party regained control of the Senate for the first time since 2007 and increased its majority in the House of Representatives, also winning a wide range of seats in local elections at the state level. Despite most of the vote being about domestic issues, foreign policy has also played an important role.

Republican candidates achieved progress by insisting that Obama had weakened the United States in international relations. They pointed out his withdrawal from the red line he had drawn against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regarding the chemical weapons used in Syria in 2013, the length of time it took him to realize the threat of the Islamic State, his tolerant approach toward Iran, and his weakness in the face of Russian interference in Ukraine. Although the Constitution of the United States puts foreign policy decision-making in the hands of the president, Obama still needs congressional authorization to launch and fund major military operations, deliver important international sanctions, and ratify international treaties. The Republicans’ control of the House and Senate will push Obama to be more stringent with regard to a number of issues. It is expected that Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell, John McCain and others will push for several issues including: ceasing automatic cuts to the military budget, legislated during previous years; re-focusing on building U.S. military capabilities; imposing further sanctions on Russia; increasing aid to Ukraine; and sending U.S. military training units to Kiev, Poland and the Baltic republics; in addition, finalizing the commercial partnership agreement across the Pacific with Asian allies to help contain China.

Furthermore, [they will advocate for] cancelling the deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2016 and developing a plan of a limited but long-term U.S. military presence in Kabul, as well as increasing the intensity of airstrikes against the Islamic State group. In addition, [Republicans will support] increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq —and possibly later on, Syria — from 1,500 at present to about 15,000 for support and training in combatting the Islamic State group. [These leaders will push for] increasing support for non-extremist rebels in Syria, and putting an end to a rapprochement with Iran, which produced nothing according to Republican opinion, and contributed to the reluctance of Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East.

Certainly, Obama still has power in foreign policy, but has to take into account the views of Congress if he hopes to regain the momentum of his presidency and his party.

In practical terms, the war against the Islamic State group requires a new mandate from Congress, where the old authorization granted to George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks no longer exists. Obama will need congressional approval for lifting sanctions on Iran if there was a nuclear deal with it, which the new Congress feels reluctant doing.

Obama came to power denouncing the military policies of his predecessor, claiming that it is through direct diplomacy with the leaders and the people that conflicts with enemies can be defused and a new network of relations based on partnership and common interests can be built. He promised to do this with Russia, China, Iran and the Muslim world, and in the Arab-Israeli conflict, he insisted on seeing the reality of international relations as misunderstandings, rather than actual rivalry between the conflicting interests among the power forces. This approach has failed in all these areas, but the talks with Iran are the last initiative remaining from his main vision.

Republicans have considered Obama’s message to the Iranian leader Khamenei after the election as a sign of his weakness and misunderstanding of international politics. It seems that the message encouraged Khamenei to promote a nuclear agreement by the Nov. 24 deadline. It showed the prospects for U.S.-Iranian cooperation in the war against the Islamic State group and about the stability of the situation in Iraq and Syria. However, the message was probably interpreted in Tehran as a sign of American weakness, and thus it is likely to encourage Iran to be more stringent in its negotiations.

In any case, the congressional election results increase the chance of the negotiations with Iran failing, as Tehran believes the U.S. administration is in a weak position and most likely, the Iranians will stick to or even escalate their position. All the while Obama is in a difficult position for accepting a compromise because if he does not get significant concessions from Iran, Congress will not lift the sanctions. On the other hand, if the talks fail, the White House will be in a more difficult situation if it proposes the extension of the interim agreement and holds further talks. Once talks fail, Congress will ask to end these talks, end the accord, and escalate sanctions. Also, Congress will press for further action against Iran’s allies in the region, especially the Assad regime.

If Obama loses his bet over the talks with Iran, he has no other choice than to shift to a more aggressive stance. President Jimmy Carter was one of the advocates of peaceful international relations, but turned to a stricter position during the last year of his term in 1980 after American hostages were seized in Iran and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Obama also tested the benefits of switching his position last summer when he reversed his original policy of a full withdrawal from Iraq and ordered the U.S. Air Force to return to the area to carry out airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.