President Obama in a speech on May 28 at the commencement ceremony of cadets at the Military Academy, West Point, summed up his foreign policy. Obama said, “America must always lead, if we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But US military action cannot be the only — or even the primary component of our leadership in every instance.” Referring to the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan Obama said, “Our reduced presence there allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa…The partnership I have described does not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do. Our actions must meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off at the battlefield.” The President declared, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law: it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions.” Obama’s speech did not surprise anybody — he elucidated the policy his administration has been in pursuit of since 2009. During the campaign Obama pledged to wind up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans saw the rationale of closing the wars and voted for Obama. In his very first year, Obama took steps to withdraw troops from Iraq and during the following three years the Iraqis took charge of their country. Unfortunately stability has not returned to Iraq; intolerance and personal vendetta made space for the extremists and Mesopotamia continues to bleed today. The US did not win and Iraqis lost close to a million lives in a war that was launched against international law. This is the message Obama conveyed when he said the ability to flout international norms and the rule of law does not make the US exceptional. The situation in Afghanistan has been much more convoluted. Ethnic incompatibility, religious bigotry, amongst other factors, made governance difficult. The people of Afghanistan have never tested democracy and possibly do not subscribe to pluralism. There has not been a national army for a long time. Armed militias with allegiance to local warlords fought against each other without a national cause. American efforts to transform the country under unitary government were not subscribed to by political forces or individuals in the country. As a consequence, even after 13 years of American intervention no political system of governance per se has emerged to ensure stability. Obama realised the problems and decided to phase out. Most combat troops will return home by the end of the year leaving a small contingent to support the Afghan national army. The new Afghan president, to be elected soon, will have the challenge of consolidating gains made so far. By terminating the two costly wars President Obama redeemed his pledge to the nation. In the meantime over 2,000 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and about 15,000 returned home with serious injuries. The war cost the US government $ 448 billion since 2001. The Russian annexation of Crimea in March empowered the hawks in the US Congress. They mounted pressure to impose sanctions against the Russian government and provide military assistance to Ukraine’s army. Secretary of State John Kerry travelled from one European capital to another to secure support in favour of sanction against Russia but with little success. The French and the British governments did not want to put their arms deals with Russia at risk while the German government did not want to throw its citizens into the cold by suspending gas supplies from Russia. Though multilateralism failed, European countries voiced support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Now Ukraine’s entire eastern region has turned restive and the writ of the Kiev government does not exist in the troubled region. Newly elected Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, received pledges of $ 5 million in non-lethal equipment from Obama but the way European governments courted President Putin in Paris, during the D-Day celebrations, dismissed any possibility of united action against Moscow. On the contrary, President Poroshenko has been encouraged by European leaders to accommodate Russian demands. American unilateral sanctions strained its relationship with Moscow with no tangible succour to Kiev. Obama’s assertion that US must lead has not been borne out by action in the Middle East. During his first term no initiative was taken to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He voiced opposition against the denial of a homeland for the Palestinians and disapproved of settlements in the occupied territory. But he failed to take tangible action to promote peace. Obama appeared to have surrendered to the Israeli lobby. In his second term, John Kerry tried to revive the peace process and even arbitrarily set a timeframe to reach an agreement. Since settlement expansion continued unabated, the Palestinians lost any incentive for a peace deal. The recent decision to build another 3,300 settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem reinforces the notion that Israel wants peace on its own terms. The US government has no guts to challenge Israel’s illegal actions. The insurgency in Syria and the reprisals by the Assad regime brought worldwide condemnation. Strained Washington-Moscow bilateral relations have positioned Russia quite firmly behind Syria’s leader. The news that jihadists have infiltrated rebel forces deterred US assistance to the opposition. Should the situation persist, Syria might transform into a breeding ground for extremists — a threat to regional peace. An elected government in Egypt was dismissed by the military after it completed one year in office. President Morsi’s government did not perform and lacked the ability to consolidate the coalition it formed during the uprising against Hosni Mubarak. Nonetheless it was an elected government for the first time since the pyramids were built. John Kerry’s characterisation of the military takeover as “aiming at restoring democracy” was tantamount to the denial of the sacrifices of the martyrs that overthrew Mubarak’s dictatorship in 2011. Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has now been elected through an electoral exercise marked by voter turnout as low as 15 percent. Many youths who rebelled against Mubarak and also protested against Morsi, are now in prison. The US government should urge the Cairo authorities to free thousands of youths imprisoned only for the love of democracy in their country. This will make the rhetoric of human rights a little more meaningful. Following decades of sanctions, boycotts and wars of words, the process of rapprochement began between Tehran and Washington in September 2013. President Rouhani blinked first — he signalled that Iran would be prepared to discuss nuclear issues though he reiterated it was designed for peaceful purposes. Obama reciprocated and ministerial level talks began amongst the US, EU and Iranian governments. Notwithstanding severe opposition and vilification from Israel, an interim agreement was signed in November. Both sides became conciliatory and according to the latest reports the next meeting will take place in Geneva on June 10 and 11. Obama acknowledged, “There remained a very real chance of agreement — one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force.” The choice of dialogue over confrontation makes the US exceptional. The author is a former official of the United Nations