US Foreign Policy in Obama’s Second Term

With Obama's re-election and his new foreign policy team, the question that is raised among foreign policy and international affairs experts is what will his foreign policy be in his second term? Obviously, in responding to this question, it must be said that US foreign policy will naturally and normally continue and the continuation of foreign policy as a national and comprehensive issue is not only related to the US during the Obama administration but also a universal and widespread phenomenon. But the role that personalities and executive officials play in any country including the US with regard to foreign policy and the differences in different administrations cannot be ignored. In this respect, attention must be paid to the bulk of experiences, details, and issues as time passes. If we put the collection of these actions and reactions alongside each other, in response to the question of what Obama's international direction will be in his second term, three important and considerable issues can to some extent clarify the conceptual and operational frameworks of US foreign policy during Obama's second term:

1. Obama's behavioralism

2. Knowledge about Obama's group of colleagues in foreign policy and national security

3. Understanding domestic and international concepts under the present conditions

Obama displayed special behavioral characteristics during his first term, the comprehension of which is significant to understanding his behavior in his second term. It must be considered that Obama was not a prominent and rooted personality within the complicated political system of the US called the establishment. He neither came from a prominent political family in the US nor did he have long-term and clear executive experience. 

In his first term, Obama had to prove that he was from the US system and in order to do that, he had to show certain behavior in domestic and foreign policy. Thus, he attempted to make some repairs and changes in US foreign policy, especially by changing the tone, but he did not make major changes in the context of issues in order to clarify that he was working within the establishment and did not intend to make changes in the foundations of the system. This point limited the atmosphere of initiatives for Obama in foreign policy. Although he was able to make changes in relations between Europe and the allies, in certain cases, including the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, he acted even more radically than Bush and using unmanned planes and killing civilians in wedding and mourning ceremonies with these planes increased and became a serious matter. 

Meanwhile, part of Obama’s radical behavior, along with the continuation of the US’ former foreign policy and changing the tone will probably continue in the second term. 

A comparison between Obama's foreign policy and national security team in the first and second terms indicate Obama’s operational direction in international affairs. In his first term, Obama's team was similar to the foreign policy and national security team of Clinton. The selection of Hillary Clinton because of US domestic policy and also the ambitions of Hillary Clinton herself for the 2016 election and the willingness of the Democratic Party to continue its control of the White House were significant. 

In the second term, while part of this team still remains with the president, the presence of two key individuals i.e. John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as candidates for Secretary of State and Defense Secretary cannot be considered as Clinton models. 

It seems that the introduction of this team is more aimed at sending a message to foreign audiences and being analyzed by the Zionist regime and Iran especially, which of course is not incorrect. The message of this selection to Netanyahu and the radical right wing in Israel and the US is that the immediate choice of military means is not the first option with regard to Iranian issues and this is contrary to Netanyahu's inclinations. The message of this selection to Iran is that the US is ready for interaction, even though this interaction is accompanied with more pressure, threats, and sanctions. Nevertheless, it seems that the main objective of this message is for inside the US. 

The complicated political context that the US must act within is, on one hand, rooted in US domestic policy and, on the other hand, rooted in international policies. In US domestic policy, international affairs and the direction of US foreign policy have been challenging issues and they gain meaning in the light of internal relations. It means that all major behaviors of US foreign policy are somehow rooted in internal interactions, the most prominent of which is the issue of the Arab-Israeli dispute and the internal connections of the Zionist regime with the US Congress. Even with regard to the issue of Iran, it must be pointed out that the role of US internal forces, due to this same connection, is very prominent and the Congress is one of the major challenges for the US president.

But beyond that, within the international political context, the US during Obama's second term will try to pursue a concept which is important for the elites in US domestic and foreign policy meaning US leadership. But US leadership in today’s complicated world is not easy. In his second term, Obama will be faced with a different context in the field of executing US leadership. Furthermore, the developments which have been proposed in the US’ foreign policy thinking, particularly in the last year of Obama's first term, and the concepts created under these developments, which basically include the concept of changing the epicenter to Asia, have created special challenges for US foreign policy. The elites of China's foreign policy and national security consider this policy to be anti-Chinese and aimed at its containment. It must be noted that the Europeans are also sensitive towards this policy, i.e. changing the epicenter from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. The Arab states in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf which are US allies have shown more sensitivity in this regard. 

Alongside this new concept, the old challenges and those which existed in US foreign policy in Obama's first term must be discussed, including the issue of Iran. Despite all US sanctions and pressures, Iran, according to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State during Obama’s first term, is still the one of the most difficult issues of US foreign policy. The issue of Palestine is the oldest issue for the US. Management of relations between Russia and the US, despite the claims of Clinton's first term presidency which used the concept of reset, is showing signs of certain structural tensions. 

Overall, the political context of Obama's second term, especially in the international arena, will probably be more complicated than his first term.