Results 1 to 10 of 10
Obama's foreign policy after the midterms
Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...357537430.htmlOpinion Obama's foreign policy after the midterms
A Republican-controlled Senate will force Obama to get tougher on Iran and Russia.
Last updated: 05 Nov 2014 13:18
Jason A Johnson
Jason Adam Johnson is an US professor of political science and communications, political commentator, and writer. He is the author of the book Political Consultants and Campaigns: One Day to Sell.
RSS
The Republican Party has won control over the US Senate [EPA]
The midterm elections in the United States do not have the dramatic fanfare and theatre of the presidential elections, but they are no less important in their impact on the rest of the world. The US president for all of his constitutional power still has to work with Congress to implement and fund his policies. Nowhere is this more prominent than in foreign policy where Congressional approval is crucial to ratify treaties and fund military actions abroad. In the wake of the Republican takeover of the US Senate the world could see some fundamentally different foreign policy coming out of the Obama administration for its final two years. And these changes will likely influence how the Obama presidency is viewed for decades.
President Barack Obama has staked a lot of his international credibility on the JPOA (Joint Plan of Action) a UN-sponsored plan to freeze Iranian nuclear development in exchange for easing US-backed sanctions. The US and Iran have until November 24 to finalise the deal, but with Republicans taking over the US Senate, Obama's ability to back up the deal may be weakened.
There are already about 67 votes (out of 100) in the Senate including many in Obama's Democratic Party, who are very hawkish on increasing sanctions on Iran. Thus far, Democratic leaders have stalled votes on any tougher sanctions on Tehran but come January when the new Senate takes over, a tougher bill will likely get passed. This will force Obama to either veto a sanctions bill against Iran, which would be political suicide, or take a harsher stance in nuclear negotiations with Iran to appease the Senate back in the US.
Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain will take over the Senate Armed Services committee and he's been very clear that he wants US troops on the ground in Syria and fighting ISIL.
More aggressive with Russia
There is no love lost between Obama and Vladimir Putin, and their relationship has soured even more since the Russian soft invasion of Ukraine earlier this year.
Obama was quick to impose sanctions by executive order because ultimately those can be reversed or amended should the conditions in Ukraine get better or worse.
Now that Republicans have taken over the Senate, Obama's hand will be forced. The US only pledged an additional $53m to aid Kiev after an impassioned plea for help in September, and Obama will have a hard time getting more funding to the Ukrainian government with a Republican-controlled Senate that controls funding to foreign policy endeavours.
Worse than little or no funding to Kiev, the new head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Bob Corker, wants to put harsher sanctions on Moscow essentially picking a fight that Obama would rather avoid. If Russia gets more aggressive in the coming months, expect Republicans to pressure him for sanctions that are more binding than executive orders.
ISIL - boots on the ground?
The US doesn't really have a plan on how to fight ISIL because it is still not entirely clear how big or how powerful it really is. However, that hasn't stopped many Republicans from calling for putting "boots on the ground" all throughout the Middle East, including Syria, to battle ISIL no matter where they may be operating.
Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain will take over the Senate Armed Services Committee and he's been very clear that he wants US troops on the ground in Syria and fighting ISIL. Very few Senators (in either party) are willing to go that far to fight ISIL but any of the president's plans going forward will likely have to put troops into play in order to get full support from the Senate.
Relations between Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama have only been a shade better than those with Putin. With Republicans controlling the Senate, Israel will have more allies to lobby to obstruct any efforts by the Obama administration to put pressure on Israel to limit or stop building new settlements. US involvement in the Middle East peace process may slow to a crawl in the next two years.
The US has its political or military tentacles in just about every part of the globe right now and that won't change due to midterm elections. However, if the Republicans have their way, the grip of those tentacles across so many crucial foreign policy issues might get a little tighter. The world will soon see just how much fight Obama has left in his last two years as president.
Jason Adam Johnson is an US professor of political science and communications, political commentator, and writer. He is the author of the book Political Consultants and Campaigns: One Day to Sell.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera
Obama is doomed politically. He will not have any influence with the rest of the state. A Republican will win in 2016 and the idea of nation building through occupation will be back in vogue. The next ten years will be spent a hair's distance away from a war with Russia and China.
Also notice how the Tea Party is dead. It's 2000 again.
The US is doomed politically, and economically... And we're getting exactly what we deserve.
Hmmm....here's a article I've found arguing otherwise.
http://mic.com/articles/103202/the-g...tm_campaign=FB
The GOP Just Won Control of the Senate. Here's Why It Won’t Last Long
By Zeeshan Aleem 22 hours ago
At long last, the Republican Party has wrested control of the Senate from the Democrats. The GOP's victory was decisive, with wins in the key races that were needed to capture a majority in the upper chamber.
The alarmist cable news punditocracy (incidentally, a class of powerful people who never face accountability for its actions) has already begun to fulfill its "this changes everything" attitude toward anything that happens anywhere and has begun reading a dramatic eulogy for Obama. But the advantages reaped by the GOP's victory may be short-lived.
While the Republicans' performance Tuesday gives the impression of new strength, many of the factors that contributed to their gains in fact serve as a lens for understanding why they may not fare well in the 2016 elections. The answer lies mainly in looking at the bigger picture with demographics.
Senate Republicans face a much tougher map in 2016: While this year Democrats had to protect Senate seats in conservative states captured during the Democrats' sweep in 2008, in 2016 many Republicans will be vulnerable in states that are up for grabs or learn toward Democrats. This is because many of those GOP senators up for re-election in 2016 were swept into office on the tea party wave of 2010, when the political climate was much more favorable to Republicans.
In 2016, Republicans will be playing defense in those states. Given that the GOP has won a narrow majority, it could very easily slip back into the hands of the Democrats given trends in those states.
Different electorates: The demographic profiles of people who vote presidential election years and midterm election years are so distinct that they are essentially different voting bodies. As Ron Brownstein wrote recently in the Atlantic:
"Democrats have become increasingly reliant on precisely the groups most likely to sit out midterms, while Republicans score best among those most likely to show up. ... The consequences of these shifts are so profound that political analysts increasingly talk about two American electorates: the one that picks presidents (and has awarded Democrats the popular vote in five of the past six presidential races) and the one that determines midterms (which have usually favored Republicans since 1994)."The older and whiter midterm electorate gave Republicans a boost this year, but young and minority voters will be out in much greater numbers in 2016, lending advantage to the Democrats once again. If you consider that minorities and younger voters are growing at a greater rate than other segments of the population, you can quickly see that this problem is only going to get bigger for the Republicans over time.
This could've been bigger: Election results are not just a matter of who won, but how they won. The relatively narrow margin of victory for Republican senators in key presidential battleground states suggests that Republicans didn't decisively capture the hearts and minds of vital swing voters when Obama's low ratings and widespread disaffection with Washington rendered them especially vulnerable.
In the New York Times, Nate Cohn argued in the run up to the election that the absence of Republican landslides in battleground states would signal missed opportunity.
"Democratic candidates would probably win Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa and Georgia — along with control of the Senate — if those who vote were as young, diverse and Democratic as they were in 2012 or will be in 2016," he wrote.
Control of the Senate is a double-edged sword: While many political observers are analyzing how Republican control of the Senate will alter the ways the two parties will clash with each other, just as important is how this development will create new incentives for potential clashes within the GOP itself.
Republican senators with their eyes on a potential 2016 run for the White House, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, will have different incentives for voting on big pieces of legislation than a conservative senator up for re-election in a blue state — and both will have different incentives than Mitch McConnell and John Boehner as they try to shepherd big bills through an unruly scene in Washington with the hope of either compelling Obama to accept a conservative agenda or depict his vetoes as a symbol of how Washington never gets anything done.
The problem of varying incentives could manifest in different ways. Consider a scenario in which contenders for the presidency get so swept up in congressional Republicans' newfound power that they champion policies that excite the base at the expense of vital swing voters who must be courted in the next two years. The most obvious example of this is immigration legislation and the Hispanic vote.
The takeaway: The Republican takeover of the Senate does change things in Washington for the next two years, but broader demographic trends, hostile territory in 2016 and a Republican Party liable to over-interpret its mandate and veer from the discipline needed for its presidential performance could wash away the gains of this year.
Zeeshan Aleem Politics staff writer at Mic. Experience: The Huffington Post, Politico, The Atlantic Wire, BBC. Education: Sidwell Friends School, Oxford University, George Washington, University of Chicago.
So nothing new. Everything just happens somewhat faster.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
Three words: bomb, bomb, bomb.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Fredrick Douglass)
´We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.´ (Malcolm X)
´Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.´ (Rosa Luxemburg)
What do you mean by this? How is this germaine to the topic of the thread? Obama's policy is bomb bomb bomb but the thread asks how this changes. Are you saying this won't change? Since you're (relatively) new here, do note we should all strive to avoid cryptic one liners.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
Obama is a 2nd term President going through midterm elections. He's fine, he gets to retire in 2 years and spend the rest of his life selling books and giving speeches. The Clintons and Bushes are both around after similar 2nd midterm trumpings, unfortunately. That said, he'll have a hard time making any big "achievements" for the rest of his time in office.Originally Posted by Martin Luther
That just reminds me of when McCain sung "Barbara Ann" as "Bomb Iran"
Socialist Party of Outer Space
The article basically amnesties the bomber-in-chief from any future foreign policy adventures because, you see, his hand was forced. The fact that the Democrats have been basically pursuing the same foreign policy, although sometimes prettied up, is never explicitly mentioned, although the prospect of the US no longer founding the Kiev government is mentioned as something horrible.
And no doubt is wondering, like so many other "house" presidents before him have, "...but I did what the Wallstreet masta wanted..."
Yep, and as I am already somewhat indirectly paraphrasing Malcolm X here, whether speaking of militarized police filled with the ranks of those already trained in foreign wars to consider civilians the enemy, or the last gasp greed orgy of neoliberalism before open barbarism, America's chickens are indeed coming home to roost...
