The Obama image difference in foreign policy

Roger Cohen's op-ed today addresses President Obama's personality and image in altering the calculus of US foreign policy and international affairs. "The Mellow Doctrine," as Cohen dubs Obama's foreign policy, has gone a far way in disarming some critics of the US. In some ways, this is a heartening moment as it becomes clear that Americans believe in their president's policy direction (according to polls) and allies want the US to stand up and lead again from a position of respect and strength. Marc Lynch's blog at Foreign Policy points how the US has engaged Syria and Hamas realistically rather than talking at each other with no hope of reconcilliation. Although issues linger, there is at least the promise of steps in a positive direction after the past few years of the US high horse.

Cohen states "In Israel, I understand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is about to drag his Likud party kicking and screaming to acceptance of the idea of a two-state solution because he knows the cost of an early confrontation with Obama." Uh, I don't know about that reality. Ethan Bronner's article--"Israel Faces a Hard Sell in Bid to Shift Policy"--in today's NYT seems to contradict Cohen's claim. Bronner's article maintains that Binny is going to push back against the Obama direction and the two state utopia.

It's unlikely that the dynamic duo of Binny and Avigdor will cease settlement building or enter into any agreements that the Obama team might want. It's up to Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell to strong arm them and avoid their suasion on the dire threat posed by Iran. A nuclear armed Iran is a horrible thing, but attacking Iran won't have the same result as Osiraq in 1981.