Barack Obama: The Loneliest Man on the Planet?

The president, isolated internationally and domestically, tries to prevent the global system from ‘unraveling.’ Will Iran take advantage of his plight?

Getty Images
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
Sept. 6, 2013, 8:52 a.m.

Barack Obama looked like about the most isol­ated man on earth Fri­day. At his clos­ing news con­fer­ence at the G-20 Sum­mit in St. Peters­burg, Rus­sia, an ap­par­ently ex­hausted pres­id­ent lamen­ted that all the world’s good and great — from the U.N. to the pope — were lin­ing up against him, and that it was his lonely lot to pre­vent  in­ter­na­tion­al law from “un­rav­el­ing” over Bashar al-As­sad’s flag­rant use of chem­ic­al weapons.  “When there’s a breach this brazen of a norm this im­port­ant and the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity is para­lyzed and frozen and doesn’t act, then that norm be­gins to un­ravel,” Obama said. “And if that norm un­ravels, then oth­er norms and pro­hib­i­tions start un­rav­el­ing. And that makes for a more dan­ger­ous world.”

But Obama’s words are find­ing few listen­ers, either abroad or at home. Do­mest­ic­ally it is look­ing more and more that Obama made a po­ten­tially dev­ast­at­ing mis­take in go­ing to a Con­gress that has thwarted so many of his plans in the past. His own Demo­crats, as Obama ac­know­ledged in St. Peters­burg, are prov­ing at least as much trouble in sup­port­ing a res­ol­u­tion to at­tack Syr­ia as the Re­pub­lic­ans. As of this week­end, the pres­id­ent ap­peared to be los­ing the vote tally, at least in the House. If any House vote goes against him and he strikes any way, he could face a re­newed and dis­tract­ing (if ul­ti­mately un­suc­cess­ful) im­peach­ment drive from the hard right. If, on the oth­er hand, Obama backs down from his pledge to at­tack Syr­ia, he could eas­ily lose all cred­ib­il­ity abroad — and with Ir­an threat­en­ing to vi­ol­ate the nuc­le­ar “norm.” “I knew this was go­ing to be a heavy lift,” Obama said Fri­day, again rather wear­ily.

Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials now real­ize that the biggest obstacle on the Hill is not so much prov­ing what As­sad did it as mak­ing clear what they will do about it without drag­ging a war-weary na­tion in­to yet an­oth­er ex­ten­ded con­flict. They are push­ing all-out to make the case that the pres­id­ent can de­liv­er a lim­ited but ef­fect­ive strike against As­sad.

Per­haps, pick­ing up on the pres­id­ent’s words Fri­day, they would do bet­ter to ex­pand the case dra­mat­ic­ally bey­ond Syr­ia. The is­sue at stake is no longer just wheth­er Bashar al-As­sad will be al­lowed to get away with break­ing an in­ter­na­tion­al “norm.” It is also what mes­sage the world will be send­ing to As­sad’s next-door neigh­bor and ally, Ir­an. If Obama is forced to back down on Syr­ia, Ir­an will get an enorm­ous boost in con­fid­ence that no one will dare thwart its stealthy ef­forts to build a nuc­le­ar bomb.

Des­pite the elec­tion of a sup­posedly mod­er­ate pres­id­ent, the latest In­ter­na­tion­al Atom­ic En­ergy Agency re­port on Ir­an, which the or­gan­iz­a­tion’s board of gov­ernors will take up  in Vi­enna next week, shows that Tehran has con­tin­ued to build up its nuc­le­ar cap­ab­il­it­ies.

Obama’s in this dif­fi­cult fix, of course, only be­cause he is in the un­en­vi­able po­s­i­tion of be­ing forced to en­force mul­ti­lat­er­al­ism uni­lat­er­ally (ex­cept for the French, that is). He is try­ing to shore up the U.S.-led mul­ti­lat­er­al glob­al sys­tem, one that was badly dam­aged by his pre­de­cessor’s uni­lat­er­al thrust in­to Ir­aq and the glob­al fin­an­cial crisis that Wall Street pre­cip­it­ated on George W. Bush’s watch, and which is in a state of near-dis­sol­u­tion now. His­tory sug­gests that without the lead­er­ship of a dom­in­ant power — in this case the U.S., be­cause there is no one else — aut­arky reins. If “norms” for use of WMD use go, the glob­al sys­tem of open trade and peace­ful re­la­tions may fol­low.

Per­haps Obama’s greatest frus­tra­tion was re­vealed in the com­ments he made about the irony of be­ing seen as a war­mon­ger. “I was elec­ted to end wars, not start ‘em,” Obama said. “I spent the last four and a half years to re­duce our re­li­ance on mil­it­ary power.” In­deed, be­fore be­ing con­fron­ted with Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons use, Obama had been lead­ing an ef­fort to ef­fect­ively de-mil­it­ar­ize Amer­ic­an for­eign policy. He stood against some of his seni­or ad­visors in avoid­ing any in­volve­ment in the Syr­i­an civil war, des­pite cries for hu­man­it­ari­an in­ter­ven­tion. In a ma­jor speech in May at the Na­tion­al De­fense Uni­versity, the pres­id­ent even in­dic­ated that he was down­grad­ing anti-ter­ror­ism from a war to a po­lice en­force­ment ac­tion. It’s time to nar­row and de-em­phas­ize the glob­al war against al-Qaida, Obama said, the bet­ter to fo­cus on “na­tion-build­ing at home,” his fa­vor­ite theme. Amer­ic­an de­ploy­ments will go back to the mea­ger pres­ence we had pre-9/11, be­cause, Obama said, “the fu­ture of ter­ror­ism” will be a smal­ler-scale “threat that closely re­sembles the types of at­tacks we faced be­fore 9/11.”

Now even his own mil­it­ary is lin­ing up against him, writes re­tired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales in The Wash­ing­ton Post. “Go back and look at im­ages of our na­tion’s most seni­or sol­dier, Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey, and his body lan­guage dur­ing Tues­day’s Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee hear­ings on Syr­ia,” Scales wrote in an op-ed Fri­day. “It’s pretty ob­vi­ous that De­mp­sey, chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry’s thun­der­ing voice and arm-wav­ing re­doun­ded in rage against Bashar al-As­sad’s at­ro­cit­iesDe­mp­sey was largely (and re­spect­fully) si­lent. De­mp­sey’s un­spoken words re­flect the opin­ions of most serving mil­it­ary lead­ers.” 

The lonely pres­id­ent has one more chance to win over his coun­try and the world, in a prime-time speech Tues­day night. To give Obama a little bit of com­pany, the White House re­leased a joint state­ment on Syr­ia signed by 10 al­lies: Aus­tralia, Canada, France, Italy, Ja­pan, South Korea, Saudi Ar­a­bia, Spain, Tur­key and the United King­dom. But the state­ment fell short of en­dors­ing a mil­it­ary strike, call­ing only for “a strong in­ter­na­tion­al re­sponse.”

Some­times, it’s not so good to be the king, or the pres­id­ent.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
2 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×