Obama's Top 10 Foreign-Policy Headaches

If the president turns to global affairs after his midterm shellacking, the newly emboldened Republican opposition isn't going to make life easy for him.

BY JOSH ROGIN | NOVEMBER 11, 2010

Now that Republicans have taken back the House of Representatives and seem to be preparing to thwart U.S. President Barack Obama's domestic-policy agenda, the White House may be tempted to look to foreign policy to achieve some victories in the coming year, as well as a means of achieving a measure of cooperation with a seemingly intransigent GOP.

But if that is the administration's strategy, it's likely to fall flat. On most, if not all, of Obama's top foreign-policy action items, a more powerful, less accommodating Congress appears ready to throw additional roadblocks in his way.

As a top GOP congressional aide told FP's The Cable, "You are going to see more aggressiveness to push an agenda and not to defer to the administration." 

Here are the top 10 foreign-policy issues Obama and his team will now have to work harder to move forward on when the new Congress meets in January.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images,

 

Josh Rogin is staff writer at Foreign Policy. He blogs at thecable.foreignpolicy.com.

AMERICAN SON

3:48 PM ET

November 11, 2010

New Start Treaty

The New Start Treaty is not just a headache for the president. It is dangerous for the United States of America. It is too much, too soon, too reliant on good intentions when realism points to otherwise.

Below a certain threshold of nuclear weapons the United States is in great danger in today's world.

Let the president give up his idealistic aspirations of "a world without nuclear weapons," nourished from the time of his undergraduate days at Columbia and work on a world without cancer, a world without poisonous insects, a world without murder and mayhem.

The whole process of arms control needs to be rethought. We need to go back to the drawing board. No, a firm no, to the New Start Treaty. But this would require strategic thought.

 

KADATH

7:54 PM ET

November 16, 2010

@American Son

Below a certain threshold of nuclear weapons the United States is in great danger in today's world.

_____________________________

I'd like to know what the threshold of ash and cinder are to provide an effective deterrence? 1500 weapons seem to be more than adequate, even if spread all over the world, as not a drop of rain, or a mouthful of food would ever again be free of the effects of radiation, presuming some of us would be alive to enjoy it.

You can keep your nativist narrowmindedness to yourself. But don't joke about nuclear power. Even with 1500 weapons, no organized power would ever think it could deliver a knowckout blow on the United States and escape without being bombed into the stone age or worse (obliteration/extinction).

Now, I'd like to move from the 1980's to the 21st Century, where, despite some economic problems, we already have video evidence of the US being able to deliver a missile down the chimney of a bad guys house.

 

AMERICAN SON

3:54 PM ET

November 11, 2010

Veteran's Day

On this Veteran's Day when we remember the sacrifices veterans have made and continue to make around the world, when we remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, let us remember that it is only with strength that we have forged a great country, the hope of the free world; and, that we are still in struggles with depots who practice oppression. We can be idealistic in our intentions and attempt to shape a better world, while others attempt to shape our thinking and actions.

We should remain firm in our dedication to freedom, progress, and prosperity. We should remain constant in our protection of our citizens. We should reject outright the New Start Treaty and rethink it and the arms control process as a whole. What needs resetting is our thinking.

 

DAVELNAF

5:02 PM ET

November 11, 2010

The Big Three FP Headaches

You mention only one of the Big Three foreign policy issues facing the US that could potentially dwarf the other nine. Iran is certainly one of them because of its nuclear program and support for worldwide terrorism. China should be on anyone’s short list because, quite frankly, it has declared economic war on the US and is gearing up for its own version of a Cold War, or worse. The third is Mexico, which is becoming increasingly destabilized from within. Mexico is so dependent on the US that if it were to melt down suddenly the resulting waves of Mexicans flooding the Border States would present any administration with a limited set of choices and all of them politically horrendous. Iran and Mexico are serious enough problems, but China might soon be off the charts. In cooperation with Cuba it drills for oil just off the US coast, presumably in international waters. But compare this behavior to its claim to own the entire South China Sea all the way the down the coast of Viet Nam and you get the point.

 

ARTFUL AID WORKER

12:35 AM ET

November 12, 2010

@Khan and Israel Query

Dude,

You are so full of yourself. The hyperbole is over-cooked. You're blog-clogged - take a suppository or something. Go for a walk in the sun.

You are right about the association between defence spending and peace. 'If you make less war, you'll have less war' might be another way of putting it.

Maybe, I am dull-witted, but can someone explain to me why Israel is exempted from aid austerity? What is the nature of this special relationship? I am not a mid-East freak; I read headlines with words like "breakthrough", "middle East", "peace talks" and turn the page to read about a plane crash or scientists growing ears on lab rats or something.

 

DOUBLEPLUSGOOD

4:21 PM ET

November 15, 2010

The US has NO influence on Israel

@ Artful Aid Worker

US aid to Israel is a given. No US administration can even think about threatening Israel with less aid if it acts against US interests. Otherwise the pro-Israel lobby groups will cause an uproar.

The only thing the US can do to influence Israel is to bribe them with even more aid if they do something that the US wants. For example, Obama just offered $3 billion so that Israel stops building on occupied land for 90 days. That's $33.3 million per day to NOT do something illegal under international law.

So basically, the US has no "stick"; all it can do is give Israel more and more "carrots".

 

CANKATX2

8:57 PM ET

November 14, 2010

well, hey there, don't you

Moreover, many people in the tatil foreign aid community had came to see the aid to Israel as a key anchor for the all (very unpopular) aid program. Witness klip izle the uproar against Eric Cantor's gazeteler proposal to move Israeli aid package to filmcin Pentagon.

 

FDGRFE

2:28 AM ET

November 15, 2010

www.b2bjordans.com

P90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42$$$$$$$
sorry to disturb u. just take u a little time.
If you are in need,
welcome to : (http://www.b2bjordans.com )
puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!
new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps
true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35
LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35
NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35
DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15
new brand watches only $$$$$$$60
our website: (http://www.b2bjordans.com)

 

DOUBLEPLUSGOOD

4:28 PM ET

November 15, 2010

Republicans fight dirty

It seems that the Republicans don't care about anything other than making sure Obama fails at everything he does. They don't care how much harm they do to the country in the process.

I'm not sure, but is there any historical precedent for blocking so many ambassador nominations? What is the purpose of this?

And excluding Israel from the aid cuts is probably the most ridiculous proposal I have ever heard of. Though not unexpected. I have never seen a better example of "the tail wagging the dog" than the US-Israeli "special friendship"...