Barack Obama’s foreign policy has generated more expectations than strategic breakthroughs. Three urgent issues -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the Afghan-Pakistani challenge -- will test his ability to significantly change U.S. policy.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was U.S. National Security Adviser from 1977 to 1981. His most recent book is Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.
The foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama can be assessed most usefully in two parts: first, his goals and decision-making system and, second, his policies and their implementation. Although one can speak with some confidence about the former, the latter is still an unfolding process.
To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States' view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well. In less than a year, he has comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy with respect to several centrally important geopolitical issues:
• Islam is not an enemy, and the "global war on terror" does not define the United States' current role in the world;
• the United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
• the United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
• the counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
• the United States should respect Latin America's cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
• the United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
• in coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
• improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities; and
• a truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
For years, Pentagon officials took comfort in the relative stability of Bahrain, which serves as a major base for the U.S. military. But the protests in the country have raised concerns that it will evict U.S. forces -- part of a broader pattern that is jeopardizing U.S. basing agreements around the world.
This article appears in the Foreign Affairs/CFR eBook, The New Arab Revolt.
Despite the reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the United States may maintain its support for the Palestinian Authority. But U.S. law forbids -- and punishes -- assistance to Hamas. Here's why Washington may have trouble getting around it.
For years, officials in Washington have complained loudly about Beijing's efforts to manipulate its currency. One novel option to stem the practice is both within international rules and would likely work: taxing the income on Chinese holdings of U.S. financial assets.
