Is President Obama unintentionally outsourcing US foreign policy?

A pattern emerging from recent events suggests so. Up first, of course, is the plan to scrap the US Missile Defense shield in Eastern Europe, a long-time thorn in the side of many European and US Liberals, not to mention Vladimir Putin. By putting the planned system on hold, Obama has simultaneously angered many of our European allies and appeased the Russians, who must be dancing in glee behind the walls of the Kremlin.

What’s the effect? The EU has neither the will nor resources to effectively deal with a resurgent and emboldened Russia looking to expand its influence, especially with former Eastern Bloc nations. This credibility-destroying decision cements Russia’s position as the other 800-lb gorilla in the room, and effectively outsources at least some European security decisions to them.

And what do we get in return? Nothing, as Hot Air points out:

This comes five days after Russia reportedly told The One that he could forget about them agreeing to any new sanctions on Iran. Is that what we’re getting in return for kneecapping our eastern European allies — Russia’s agreement to a new round of economic penalties that won’t remotely convince Tehran to give up its nuke program? Or are we not getting even that? How about having Russia change its mind about creating the very same crisis in Venezuela that it’s helped to create in Iran? Do we get that at least?

Flash back to earlier in September and the Obama administration’s flip-flop on Iran’s conference proposals. Former Ambassador Dore Gold suggests that Obama’s reversal was viewed as weakness in Iran and acceptance of their nuclear program:

…while rejecting the newest Iranian proposals on September 10, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley reminded reporters that engagement was still official US policy, stating: “We remain willing to engage Iran.” Moreover, within 24 hours Crowley announced that the US would negotiate with Iran despite his determination a day earlier that their proposals were inadequate.

The hard-line Iranian newspaper Javan noted the dramatic US shift on September 14: “One day after the hasty response to Iran’s updated package of proposals, America made a U-turn and announced that because these proposals could become a basis for direct talks with Iran, it accepts the talks over this package.” Indicating Iranian understanding of the new US policy, the article was entitled: “The inevitable acceptance of nuclear Iran.”

What’s the likely effect of this action? Besides making the administration look capricious and amateurish, it will embolden the Iranians and increase the probability that Israel will launch a solo attack on Iran. The EU is powerless to do anything – Iran has been adjusting to sanctions for some time, and there would never be any EU military action. With the US at the negotiating table Ahmadinejad can stall and delay any real action for months – enough time to complete one or two bombs. Looking at it another way, agreeing to talks outsources affairs in the region to an outlaw regime and a small but powerful country which feels like its back is up against the wall. So much for protecting US interests in the region.

The list goes on and includes Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and his deals with Iran and Russia regarding nuclear technology and money-laundering banks. Just wait – something will happen with China.

Is US foreign policy really this naive? Or is this all just an attempt to appease the old US liberal guard? Is it the (in)action of a President who is desperate for a foreign policy win to distract from his domestic program failures, even if it mean throwing our allies under the bus? If this is the case, the successes will be short-lived and rapidly turn to failures.