Danger to global peace and prosperity

US mid-term congressional elections have rendered President Barack Obama a “lame duck”, a weak executive without enough political clout to carry out his domestic or foreign policy agendas.

He will face a legislature controlled by the opposition Republican Party when new members of the House of Representatives and Senate take their seats in January.

Republicans deprived Democrats of their majority in the Senate, and increased their majority in the House of Representatives. This is an important development because control of the Senate means that Democrats could block Republican legislation.

The foreign issues on which Obama differs with Republicans set to head major congressional committees are his handling of the battle to contain and ultimately crush the Islamic State (IS), which is menacing this region, and the negotiations with Iran on curbing its nuclear programme.

On the critical Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both Democrat and Republican legislators are in accord over the need to capitulate to Israel’s demands, whatever they are, although Obama has adopted a critical approach to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama’s cautious approach to IS has been sharply criticised by Senator John McCain, who is slated to become head of the Upper House’s influential Armed Services Committee.

He has long called for the US to grant greater assistance to insurgents fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.  Obama hesitated to do so, fearing the rise of radical jihadists in Syria, as well as a spillover from the Syrian war into neighbouring countries; in some of these, religious fundamentalists are challenging the authorities and system of governance.

Another challenger is likely to be Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is set to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  He has been highly critical of Obama’s “timid” approach to Syria and Iraq.

By dispatching another 1,600 US troops, as military advisers, to Iraq, Obama may have mollified both McCain and Corker — for a time. But they are certain to find fresh weaknesses to exploit in his incompetent efforts to curb IS.

For the Republicans, Obama’s policies are not the real problem: Obama himself is the issue.

He identifies with the black community. He beat McCain for the presidency and presented himself as a moderate liberal early in his first term of office.

For right wing Republicans, moderate liberals are anathema.

He rammed his healthcare programme down Republican throats and attempted to court the Muslim world and negotiate a settlement between Palestinians and Israelis, apparently unaware that peace is the last thing Israelis want.

While Republicans must take into account that Obama has the support of US voters on IS — 58 per cent for his cautious line to 35 per cent against — they have not paid much attention to public opinion when attacking him.

Their approach to Obama has produced political deadlock in Washington.

Congress has produced less legislation during his presidency than during the reign of most of his predecessors.

McCain and Corker are likely to press Obama to take a tougher stance on Syria, adopt the Turkish line that the US must build up the armed groups fighting Assad while trying to counter IS.

This is an impossible endeavour because the majority of these factions are fundamentalist and only slightly less radical than IS.

McCain also favours the deployment of US boots on the ground, a move most US citizens reject — along with Obama.

If the US-dominated group negotiating with Iran over its nuclear programme fails to reach a comprehensive deal by the November 24 deadline, hardline congressmen could vote a new round of sanctions against Tehran, which could result in its withdrawal from talks.

These new sanctions would, effectively, not only prevent Iran from exporting the bulk of its oil, but also penalise customers in Asia and Europe, which could turn against the whole sanctions regime.

 On this issue, Obama is already under massive pressure from Israel and the pro-Israel American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, which essentially controls Congress, to take a tough line against Iran.

Failure to reach an agreement with Iran could prompt Tehran to retaliate by halting its cooperation with the US in the campaign to counter IS and lead Iran to encourage regional Shiite dissidents to continue their struggles for dominance in Yemen and initiate destabilising actions in countries where Shiites form minorities.

On all foreign issues congressional leverage is limited to the “power of the purse”, as the Republicans cannot muster 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation without the backing of rival Democrats, or the 66 needed to override a presidential initiative. However, Republicans can withhold funds to pay for Obama’s bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq and from other key foreign programmes undertaken by the administration.

One programme that is in serious jeopardy is $156 million funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency that provides food, shelter and education and health services for Palestinian refugees.

Congress seeks to end the provision of assistance to cash-strapped UNRWA unless the State Department is in a position to account for all funds in order to prevent any assistance from directly aiding the efforts of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups from rearming and reconstructing defences that could impair future Israeli assaults on Gaza.

To make matters worse for Obama and the world, Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe is likely to get the top job on the Senate’s environment committee.

Inhofe is a long-term campaigner against the science of climate change and global warming. This could damage Obama’s efforts to force polluting firms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

US failure to tackle climate change because of Republican obstructionism is a far greater danger to the peace and prosperity of the globe than IS or Iran’s nuclear programme.