The Obama foreign policy has been a failure.

Pro rattles off a list of situations where U.S. interest is at stake without making analysis on whether developments due to the Obama administration represent an improvement or regression. Foreign policy exists on a continuum- success generally isn’t represented by a clear win/loss evaluation. Often only minor foreign policy gains are huge successes. When judging this debate, keep in mind the political realities that constrained Obama as he took the White House. There are many global problems that are either intractable or allow for only very incremental progress. That an administration has been unable to resolve a situation only represents a failure if viable alternatives would have led to a better outcome. I also ask the Pro provide full citations to his sources for both his previous and upcoming rounds or forfeit the sources point on the bellow. 1. Iran The Iranian nuclear program was well developed before Obama took office; by 2006 Iran had enough uranium to build 10 nuclear bombs [1]. The development of an Iranian nuclear program is a Bush era failure. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... Derailing nuclear weapons programs is very difficult- this is why even broke countries like North Korea can become a nuclear state. Stopping such programs can only be achieved through pre-emptive military engagement or diplomacy. A pre-emptive military strike is not a viable political option- the U.S. is war weary from two ten year wars in the middle east and resources are already stretched due to these wars. Controversy over Syria only underscores that U.S. credibility on pre-emptive strikes has been ruined by Iraq’s lack of WMDs. Obama has been pushing the diplomatic front with some success, greatly expanding sanctions against Iran in 2010 and cracking down on currency exchanges with the country. The recently elected Iranian president made a campaign promise to remove sanctions against Iran and is seeking to open up negotiations with the West [2]. Iran opening up to nuclear negotiations is an Obama success. [2] http://www.bostonglobe.com... Obama’s refusal to meddle in Iranian protests is a success. Political revolutions are volatile and unpredictable- just look at how Egypt’s “democratic” revolution ended in a military run government. Obama learned a lesson from history- the U.S. got behind the Iranian coup in 1953, and created the deep mistrust of the U.S. that exists in Iran today. 2. Russia Obama made big foreign policy gains while Medvedev was in power. In 2010 Obama signed the “New START” treaty, a major nuclear-arms agreement that replaced the old START II treaty. Relations turned frosty with Putin in power, but this is not an Obama failure. Putin is nationalistic and hawkish- he pursued military confrontation during the Bush administration as well, e.g. the Georgian conflict in 2008. There are signs that the relationship is warming up- talks at the G20 meeting between Putin and Obama reassured investors with an eye on international relations, resulting in positive gains on the Dow [3]. [3] http://www.cnbc.com... Russia has been blocking U.N. measures on western intervention since forever, e.g. Kosovo. Yet Russia did not block U.N. approval of Obama’s intervention in Libya. 3. Al Qaeda The Obama administration has gutted Al Qaeda’s core leadership, including the infamous take down of Osama bin Laden [11]. There has been a resurgence of Al Qaeda, but this has been caused by the political upheaval of Arab revolutions. Revolutions create fertile grounds for terrorist cells to recruit and work outside the reach of the law. Additionally, the loss of centralized leadership focusing group efforts on the U.S. and the Arab uprisings have led AL Qaeda to be less focused on the U.S. [10] The resurgence of Al Qaeda is due to factors outside of U.S. control, but Obama has managed the situation so that Al Qaeda’s efforts are no longer directed against the U.S. Al Qaeda is no longer the organization capable of a 9/11 attack, but is instead a loose organization trying to sway domestic politics in the Middle East. [10] http://www.csmonitor.com... [11] http://www.cnn.com... 4. Britain and European Allies Britain and European allies support the U.S. on Syria, as shown by a recent sign of support at the G20 summit [3]. The British backing down from actual military involvement signifies more to do with domestic UK politics than a backing away from strategic alignment with the U.S. U.S. credibility and perception was at a low coming out of the Bush administration. Obama has only improved relations. 5. Israel Obama supports Israel. Obama oversaw the largest joint US-Israeli exercises in history, increased military support [4]. Pro-Israel lobby groups have praised Obama’s “steadfast” support of Israel [5]. [4] http://online.wsj.com... [5] http://www.jpost.com... 6. Eastern Europe Pro points to the move of a missile defense shield from Eastern Europe to the pacific as some great disruption in relations. First, the shield had been under negotiation for 7 years so it’s not like Obama scrapped a set in stone plan. The missile shield has been contentious within Poland and Czech Republic – in 2007 57% of Poles opposed it. This had no negative impact on relations. [12] The Obama move was praised by allies of the U.S. like France and Germany- demonstrating that Obama’s policy has been successful at gaining allies. [12] Finally, moving the shield is a smart strategic realignment in light of North Korean threats against the US made in 2013. [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. Humanitarian Image Seriously, just ignore this entire argument. First, humanitarian crises have always existed; the U.S. not acted on the vast majority of them. We failed to act in Rwanda and Darfur, our lack of intervention in Egypt is not making or breaking U.S. humanitarian credibility. Second, what is Pro suggesting as a response? Does Pro think a successful foreign policy is to intervene in Egypt, Syria, and tanking Chinese economic relations? This would be a disastrous course of action and Obama’s decisions here are another sign of smart prioritization and diplomatic success. 8. Libya The U.S. lead the way in passing a U.N. resolution authorizing intervention in the Libyan civil war and coordinating an international military response via NATO. This overthrew the dictator Gaddafi and supported a popular revolution. The successful intervention in Libya refutes Pro’s claims that Obama has weakened relationships with allies. 9. Asia Obama has led negotiations of the TPP- a massive free trade agreement involving countries in North American and the Asian Pacific [6]. The TPP exists as a starting point for broader free trade agreements like the FTAAP [7]. Such an agreement would involve 40% of U.S. trade and would yield a $200 billion increase in exports. [8] The TPP offers tremendous economic benefits to its members. The TPP also cements the U.S. into the economic architecture of Asia- undermining China’s influence and preserving U.S. Hegemony. Obama has also worked to strengthen economic ties with china. He has also put pressure on China to develop a multilateral agreement stabilizing regional disputes in the South China Sea- this has seen progress as china held joint military exercises with the U.S. to build trust [9]. [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.fas.org... [8] http://www.brookings.edu... [9] http://www.cbsnews.com...