When Barack Obama took the oath of office as US president in 2009, he ignited a wave of hope and a belief in transformative change that would define his presidency. His foreign policy, however, remains a topic of heated debate.
While Obama aimed to position the United States as a moral leader on the world stage, his actions often fell short of American expectations, leaving behind a legacy of instability and unfulfilled promises, particularly in the Middle East.
Obama’s approach to foreign policy was often summed up by the phrase “lead from behind.” This strategy prioritized building alliances and avoiding unnecessary wars, reflecting a preference for diplomacy over military intervention. While the philosophy seemed ideal, its practical application led to unintended, devastating consequences.
When Obama's foreign policy backfired
In 2012, for instance, Obama declared a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Yet, when evidence showed Assad’s regime continued to use such weapons, the Obama administration opted for a Russian-led deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical stockpile rather than taking military action.
Obama’s decision was widely criticized. Although it avoided immediate conflict, it failed to deter future chemical attacks. The Syrian Civil War raged on, killing over 500,000 people and displacing more than 13 million, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The war’s continuation fueled a humanitarian crisis of massive scale; more decisive US action may have prevented the suffering of millions.
The effort to sanction Syria for its use of chemical weapons only adds to Obama’s growing list of setbacks in handling the crisis, as he was ultimately ineffective due to strong opposition and substantial support for Syria from Russia and China. In 2015, for example, Russia intervened directly in the Syrian conflict by providing aerial military support to the Syrian Army, significantly strengthening the Assad regime. China used its veto power alongside Russia in the UN Security Council to block resolutions against Syria, preventing further international sanctions and interventions.
Obama aimed to weaken Assad’s regime through economic sanctions; however, substantial assistance from Russia and China counteracted his efforts.
Obama’s inaction in Syria also had repercussions for Israel. The ongoing chaos in Syria enabled Iranian-backed militias, such as Hezbollah, to expand their influence near Israel’s borders. According to a 2017 report from the Israel Defense Forces, Hezbollah built an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets, many of which were transferred through Syria.
These developments heightened tensions in the region and posed a direct threat to Israeli security, further illustrating the ripple effects of Obama’s Syria policy. In 2018 alone, Israel conducted over 200 airstrikes in Syria targeting Iranian assets to prevent further threats, showcasing the security challenges made possible by US inaction.
THE 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya is another example of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy. The operation successfully toppled Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi but failed to establish a stable government in his place. Libya descended into chaos, becoming a failed state plagued by civil war and hardship.
The increase of weapons from Libya, perpetuated by the war, fueled conflicts across Africa and the Middle East. For instance, weapons from Libya were used in Mali’s civil war and reportedly fell into the hands of extremist groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria. Even Obama acknowledged this failure, calling the lack of planning for Libya’s aftermath the worst mistake of his presidency in a 2016 interview with Fox News.
The consequences of the Libyan intervention were global. In addition to regional instability, Libya became a hub for human trafficking and extremist groups, including ISIS. By 2017, Libya’s migrant crisis had worsened, with thousands risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean, contributing to Europe’s refugee crisis. According to the International Organization for Migration, over 3,000 migrants died attempting the journey in 2017 alone.
Obama’s biggest failure was the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement aimed to halt Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. While some viewed it as a diplomatic success, others criticized it for being a freebie to Iran. The US Treasury Department reported that the deal unfroze approximately $150 billion in Iranian assets, a significant boost for a country with a GDP of around $408 billion.
The JCPOA failed to ensure Iran’s compliance with its terms. Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed gaps in monitoring, such as Iran’s refusal to grant inspectors access to suspicious sites like the Karaj facility.
Israeli intelligence further highlighted these issues, uncovering evidence that Iran continued developing missile technology and maintaining capabilities that could facilitate a rapid nuclear breakout. In 2018, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a 55,000-page document proving that Iran had lied about its nuclear program, further undermining confidence in the deal.
The JCPOA also sparked controversy within the United States. Obama bypassed Congress by treating the agreement as a deal rather than a treaty, avoiding the Senate’s ratification process. This decision drew criticism for ignoring constitutional norms.
The deal’s impact on regional stability remains questionable, as it emboldened Iran’s regional influence without addressing its ballistic missile program or support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
A 2017 US State Department report emphasizes that Iran’s support for terrorism remained “unabated,” with the country providing over $700 million annually to Hezbollah alone – money that may have very well been given to Iran by the US through the Nuclear Deal.
Despite a peaceful ideology, Obama often struggled with execution. While he sought to redefine America’s role in the world through diplomacy and alliance, his administration’s actions led to greater instability.
Whether Obama’s foreign policy ranks the worst in recent history depends on one’s perspective. The evidence, however, suggests that his administration’s decisions left a significantly more fragmented and futile world than the one he inherited.
For all his rhetorical brilliance and strategic aspirations, Obama’s foreign policy ultimately highlights the inability to govern a nation solely based on ideology.
The writer is a high school student from Great Neck, New York, passionate about advocacy and government. Through his writing and activism, he engages others in meaningful conversations about US politics, international relations, and Israel’s significance as both a homeland for the Jewish people and a key ally of the United States.