Reliably consistently unreliable

If you're waiting for the Obama administration to take a leadership role on the world stage, you're going to be disappointed. Un-leadership is the official foreign policy of the Obama administration, or maybe that should be de-leadership. In the analysis of the freshly inked nuclear deal with Iran it is interesting that Obama's supporters and detractors are both bizarrely off track. On one side there is praise for a diplomacy that simply doesn't exist. We've been down this road before. Green-lighting Iran's nuclear ambitions isn't diplomacy, it's high theatrics for ending the sanctions and washing our hands of the whole thing under cover of an agreement that says as much in 109 pages. The bureaucratic process established to manage the oversight of whatever Iran decides they want to do would make any Vogon's chest swell with pride, but it won't thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.

On the other side we have opposition punditry complaining that none of the stated objectives have been met and that the world is a more dangerous place because Iran is essentially free to pursue nuclear ambitions, and better positioned to arm and fund terrorists. Quick, somebody go tell Obama and Kerry that they somehow overlooked these fine-print details so they can call the whole thing off! I'm sure that in no time at all we'll all be joking with each other about how close we came to overlooking these "loopholes" and making a bad deal.

The weaknesses in the Iran deal are not oversights, or incidental outcomes. This agreement is barely a footnote in the Obama administration foreign policy manual. The lessons of Honduras, Iraq, Russia, Mexico, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Syria, ISIS, Israel, Cuba, and now Iran all point to one inescapable conclusion: Barak Obama and his administration have a real problem with American-centric foreign policy. The administration did not work this nuclear deal with Iran for America. They worked the deal because of America. American geopolitical influence is a target, not a goal of the Obama administration's foreign policy.

Already we are seeing a realignment of politics in the middle east. Throughout the Obama years a consistent withdrawal of American influence has created vacuums for others to fill. The frequency of these actions clearly indicates that they are not blunders. Rather than look at the world in terms of US interests, allies, and adversaries, this administration looks at the world in terms of how American influence illegitimately interferes with world politics. Our president sincerely believes that America is in need of fundamental transformation. One of his first acts as president was to travel the world in penance for America's past "arrogance". His opinion of America is reflected by his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, his neighbor Bill Ayers, and his communist childhood mentor Davies. Why would we be the least bit surprised to find that he sees US involvement in affairs overseas as anything other than a blight that he has a duty to remove?

The realignment in the middle east is not a side effect of foreign policy, it is an intentional outcome. If others step up to find ways to restrain Iran's nuclear or expansionist ambitions, that will be viewed as a success. If Iran produces a bomb or increases terror, well that's a regional political failure. Unfortunately, we have elected a president who believes the world is better off with less American influence. Kicking long standing props out from under our allies, and removing the obstacles of their foes makes the world a more dangerous place for all of us. The damage that has already been done is difficult to estimate. Even if we are fortunate enough to elect a president that sees America as a force for good in the world, it will be very difficult to reestablish credibility with friend and foe.