Skip to main content
Support
Article

No Simple Answers to Questions About U.S. Leadership

Haleh Esfandiari headhsot

"We are entering an era of difficult international transitions; and changing times require new thinking — not only by the Obama administration but by the presidential aspirants who wish to lead this country in a troubled time," writes Haleh Esfandiari.

Jeb Bush was justifiably taken to task for his waffling over the Iraq war; and he isn’t the only one who was for the war before he was against it. Two months ago, Marco Rubio thought invading Iraq was the right decision; last week he decided it was not such a good idea after all.

The brouhaha, however, diverts attention from a far more serious issue that Jeb Bush and all the presidential candidates should be addressing. How does America continue to exercise leadership in an era of diminished national will and limited resources, and in a world that is increasingly disordered and undergoing seismic shifts in the international balance of power?

The list of challenges is long; a few examples will have to suffice. In the Middle East, the signs of disorder are everywhere: collapse of the state and irresoluble civil wars in Syria, Yemen and Libya; the rise of the Islamic State; deep rifts between Sunni and Shi’ites; an Iraq that may break up into two states; Arab monarchies that seem outwardly stable but have no clear strategy for addressing regional rivalries and domestic discontent. In Europe nationalist, right-wing parties are on the rise. Putin’s Russia is reverting to a cold war mentality and is expansionist in intent. Rising powers, particularly China, need to be accommodated in a new power-sharing world order.

There is need for creative American leadership; but the old formulas are of diminished utility. After two expensive, ineffective wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American public has little stomach for the interventionist foreign policy of the cold war years. Besides, tight budgets suggest the means for such an interventionist policy are lacking. Again and again, we see the limited ability of the U.S. to impose its will even on small states; Iran, North Korea and even a close ally, Saudi Arabia, all come to mind.

Nor is this merely a question of a "robust" or a "disengaged" foreign policy. We are entering an era of difficult international transitions; and changing times require new thinking — not only by the Obama administration but by the presidential aspirants who wish to lead this country in a troubled time. From these candidates it is far more important to know how they conceive of America’s role in this new era than to know whether they are (or were) for or against the Iraq war. There is a need for a national discussion on this issue, and a presidential campaign provides an excellent opportunity to begin the debate.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.

This article was originally published in The New York Times Room for Debate.

About the Author

Haleh Esfandiari headhsot

Haleh Esfandiari

Distinguished Fellow; Director Emerita, Middle East Program 
Read More

Middle East Program

The Wilson Center’s Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond, providing analyses and research that helps inform US foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.  Read more