The World as It Is

The World as It Is Plot Summary

Introduction

In the quiet confines of a presidential limousine known as "the Beast," Barack Obama uttered a simple phrase that would mark the end of an era: "Let's go home." It was November 2016 in Lima, Peru - Obama's final foreign trip as President of the United States. This moment encapsulated the journey of a presidency that had begun with transformative ambitions and concluded amid a dramatically altered global landscape. From the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to the Arab Spring, from the hunt for Osama bin Laden to diplomatic breakthroughs with longtime adversaries, the Obama administration navigated a world in constant flux. What emerges from this remarkable period is a story of idealism tempered by reality, of grand visions constrained by inherited wars and institutional resistance. Readers will discover how presidential decisions are shaped not just by strategic calculations but by personal relationships, bureaucratic pressures, and the constant tension between American values and interests. This narrative offers invaluable insights for anyone seeking to understand how American foreign policy actually works - not through abstract theories or distant analysis, but through the lived experiences of those making critical decisions in real time, balancing the world as it is with the world as they hoped it could be.

Chapter 1: The Idealist's Journey: From Campaign to White House (2008-2009)

The journey began in the summer of 2007, when Barack Obama launched what many considered a long-shot presidential campaign against the seemingly inevitable Hillary Clinton. What distinguished Obama from the outset was his bold foreign policy stance, particularly his early opposition to the Iraq War, which he had famously called a "dumb war" in 2002. This position gave him crucial credibility with voters disillusioned by the Bush administration's approach to international affairs. Obama's campaign crafted a foreign policy vision centered on diplomatic engagement with adversaries, a renewed focus on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, and a promise to restore America's moral standing in the world. In a controversial August 2007 speech, Obama declared he would pursue diplomacy with Iran and take military action in Pakistan if necessary to capture Osama bin Laden. When he stated he would meet with leaders of adversarial nations without preconditions, Clinton called his position "irresponsible and frankly naïve" - crystallizing the fundamental divide between her traditional approach and Obama's promise of transformation. By January 2009, the idealistic campaign confronted the harsh realities of governance. Obama inherited two ongoing wars, a global economic crisis, and sky-high expectations. His administration reflected this tension between change and continuity - he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and retained Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, signaling experience during crisis, while also bringing in younger voices committed to his vision of change. This created inevitable tensions as Obama's desire for transformation met resistance from the vast government apparatus he now led. Obama's early foreign policy initiatives reflected his campaign promises of engagement and multilateralism. His June 2009 Cairo speech represented his most ambitious effort to reshape America's relationship with the Muslim world, opening with "Assalamu alaikum" and calling for a new beginning based on mutual interest and respect. Similarly, his Prague speech outlined a vision for nuclear disarmament, eventually leading to the New START treaty with Russia. These addresses embodied the administration's early idealism and belief in the power of words to reshape international relations. By late 2009, Obama faced his first major foreign policy decision: whether to approve a military surge in Afghanistan. Through a methodical three-month review, Obama pushed back against military recommendations for an open-ended commitment of 40,000 additional troops. Instead, he approved 30,000 troops with a clear timeline for withdrawal beginning in 18 months. This compromise revealed Obama's emerging pragmatism - accepting the necessity of military action while imposing limits his generals resisted. As he told his team: "The American people are idealists, but their leaders have to be realistic and hard-headed." The first two years concluded with mixed results. Obama had withdrawn combat troops from Iraq, stabilized the global economy, and reset relations with Russia. Yet the promised transformation remained incomplete, constrained by inherited wars, economic crisis, and the enduring bureaucratic resistance to change. This tension between aspiration and constraint would define Obama's approach to foreign policy throughout his presidency.

Chapter 2: Arab Spring and Its Aftermath: Hope and Disillusionment (2011)

The year 2011 began with a seismic shift in the Middle East that would fundamentally alter Obama's foreign policy. On January 14, Tunisian dictator Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali fled power after weeks of protests sparked by a fruit vendor's self-immolation. Days later, similar demonstrations erupted in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak, America's longtime ally who had ruled for nearly 30 years. The administration found itself divided along generational lines: younger staffers pushed for embracing the protesters' democratic aspirations, while senior officials like Clinton, Gates, and Biden favored stability and cautioned against abandoning Mubarak. As protests swelled in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Obama made the unprecedented decision to call Mubarak directly on February 1, telling him: "It is my belief that if the transition process drags out for several months and you continue in your office, that the protests will continue." Despite resistance from his senior advisors, Obama publicly declared that Egypt's "transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now." Ten days later, Mubarak resigned. This moment represented Obama at his most transformative - breaking from decades of U.S. policy that had prioritized stability over democracy in the Middle East. The revolutionary wave quickly spread to Libya, where dictator Muammar Gaddafi threatened to massacre civilians in Benghazi. After intense debate, Obama authorized military intervention on March 19 while in Brazil, becoming the first president to launch a war from Brazilian soil. He insisted on limited U.S. involvement - "days, not weeks" - with European allies taking the lead after initial American strikes. This "leading from behind" approach succeeded militarily but drew criticism from both the left and right at home. Amid this regional turmoil came the defining moment of Obama's first term: the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011. After months of intelligence work identified a suspicious compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, Obama faced a momentous decision. Against the advice of Defense Secretary Gates, who warned of a potential catastrophe like Jimmy Carter's failed Iran hostage rescue, Obama authorized a risky helicopter raid. The successful operation represented the fulfillment of his 2007 campaign promise to pursue bin Laden into Pakistan if necessary. In announcing the news, Obama avoided triumphalism, stating simply: "Justice has been done." By mid-2011, Obama had overseen dramatic changes in the Middle East landscape: dictators toppled in Tunisia, Egypt, and eventually Libya; bin Laden eliminated; and U.S. troops beginning their withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet these successes came with new complications. The promise of the Arab Spring was already showing signs of the challenges to come, as Islamist groups positioned themselves to fill power vacuums and Syria descended into brutal civil war. The narrative of transformation that had defined Obama's candidacy was giving way to a more complex reality of managing crises in a region resistant to outside influence. The Arab Spring ultimately taught the Obama administration difficult lessons about the limits of American power to shape outcomes in the Middle East. While the United States could support democratic movements, it could not determine their success or failure. This recognition would inform Obama's increasingly cautious approach to the region in the years ahead, as he sought to balance American values with the pragmatic assessment of what could realistically be achieved.

Chapter 3: Red Lines and Hard Choices: Syria's Civil War (2012-2013)

By 2012, the optimism surrounding the Arab Spring had faded as Syria descended into a brutal civil war. What began as peaceful protests against Bashar al-Assad's regime quickly escalated into armed conflict as the government responded with overwhelming force. The Obama administration found itself facing an agonizing dilemma: how to respond to a humanitarian catastrophe without being drawn into another Middle Eastern war with uncertain objectives and consequences. The administration's initial approach focused on diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and humanitarian aid. Obama publicly called for Assad to "step aside" in August 2011, but this declaration highlighted the limits of American influence. Unlike in Libya, there was no international consensus for military intervention, no imminent massacre to prevent, and no clear path to a stable transition. Russia and Iran stood firmly behind Assad, while regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported competing rebel factions with their own agendas. The crisis reached a critical juncture in August 2013 when Assad's forces used chemical weapons against civilians in Ghouta, killing more than 1,400 people. Having previously declared chemical weapons use a "red line," Obama faced intense pressure to respond militarily. After initially deciding to launch limited airstrikes without congressional approval, he reversed course and announced he would seek congressional authorization - a vote he was likely to lose given public opposition to another Middle East conflict. This decision proved deeply controversial within his own team. Some viewed it as abandoning America's commitment to enforce international norms against chemical weapons use. Others saw it as a principled stand against presidential war-making without congressional support. The crisis was ultimately defused when Russia brokered a deal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, allowing Obama to avoid military action while achieving the objective of removing these weapons. Critics called it luck; supporters called it deft diplomacy. The Syria debate revealed fundamental tensions in Obama's foreign policy approach. He was deeply skeptical of military interventions without clear objectives and exit strategies, especially after the Iraq experience. As he reportedly told his staff: "People always say 'never again,' but they never want to do anything." This reluctance to commit American military power without a clear path to success frustrated those who believed the United States had a moral obligation to stop Assad's atrocities. Yet Obama remained convinced that deeper involvement would lead to another Iraq-style quagmire without resolving the underlying sectarian and political conflicts. By late 2013, Syria had become the most divisive foreign policy issue of Obama's presidency. The death toll continued to rise, millions of refugees fled to neighboring countries and Europe, and extremist groups like ISIS exploited the chaos. The administration's cautious approach had avoided another American war but failed to stop the humanitarian catastrophe. This outcome reflected the painful reality that sometimes there are no good options in foreign policy - only choices between different forms of risk and different types of failure. The Syria crisis would continue to haunt Obama's presidency and shape his legacy as a leader who prioritized restraint over intervention, even at significant humanitarian cost.

Chapter 4: Diplomatic Breakthroughs: Iran, Cuba and the Power of Engagement

While the Syrian crisis exposed the limits of American power, Obama's second term also witnessed historic diplomatic breakthroughs with longtime adversaries - achievements that reflected his consistent belief in engagement over isolation. The most significant of these were the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of relations with Cuba, both representing dramatic departures from decades of American policy. The opening to Iran began unexpectedly in June 2013 with the election of Hassan Rouhani as president, representing the more moderate faction of Iranian politics. Unlike his predecessor, the inflammatory Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rouhani campaigned on improving relations with the West. Sensing an opportunity, Obama sent a private letter to Rouhani proposing discussions on the nuclear issue, receiving a positive response within weeks. What followed was an extraordinary diplomatic breakthrough, beginning with a secret channel established through Oman. The negotiations culminated in the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal extended Iran's "breakout time" to develop a nuclear weapon from a few months to over a year and established the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated. Though fiercely opposed by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and congressional Republicans, the agreement represented the most significant constraint ever placed on Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy rather than military action. Even more historic was the December 2014 announcement that the United States would normalize relations with Cuba after more than five decades of hostility. Secret negotiations facilitated by Pope Francis led to a prisoner exchange and commitment to reestablish diplomatic ties. Obama visited Havana in March 2016 - the first sitting president to do so since Calvin Coolidge in 1928 - symbolizing his belief that engagement rather than isolation was the path to promoting change in adversarial states. These diplomatic initiatives reflected Obama's consistent preference for solving problems through negotiation rather than confrontation when possible. They also demonstrated his willingness to challenge foreign policy orthodoxies when he believed they no longer served American interests. As he told his team regarding Cuba: "We've been trying the same thing for over 50 years, and it hasn't worked. It's time to try something new." The breakthroughs with Iran and Cuba also revealed a president increasingly willing to take political risks in his second term, pursuing what he believed was right despite domestic opposition. This approach stood in contrast to the more cautious calculations that often characterized his first term. As Obama reportedly told his staff regarding Cuba: "Politics is not something I worry about on this one. The politics will catch up to what we're doing." By 2016, these diplomatic achievements had become central to Obama's foreign policy legacy. They represented concrete examples of his belief that patient, persistent engagement could yield results that military threats or economic isolation had failed to achieve. While critics argued these openings represented concessions to adversaries, supporters saw them as pragmatic recognition that decades of hostility had failed to advance American interests or values. The durability of these achievements, however, would depend on whether future administrations maintained the course Obama had charted.

Chapter 5: Confronting New Threats: ISIS, Russia and Global Disorder

By 2014, the international landscape had shifted dramatically, presenting the Obama administration with a set of challenges that would test its foreign policy doctrine. The rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), Russia's aggressive moves in Ukraine, and continuing instability across the Middle East forced a recalibration of America's global role and the limits of its power. ISIS emerged from the chaos of Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian divisions, rapidly seizing territory across both countries in the summer of 2014. The group's brutal tactics - including mass executions, sexual slavery, and the beheading of Western hostages - shocked the world. When ISIS threatened the Kurdish capital of Erbil and trapped thousands of Yazidis on Mount Sinjar, Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq, reluctantly re-engaging militarily in a country he had withdrawn from in 2011. The administration's approach to ISIS reflected its broader counterterrorism philosophy: targeted military action without large-scale ground deployments. Obama described this strategy as "hitting singles and doubles" rather than swinging for home runs - an incremental approach that drew criticism from those demanding more decisive action. Yet it also reflected hard-learned lessons about the limits of American military power to reshape societies through force. Simultaneously, a crisis erupted in Ukraine when Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014 following the ouster of Ukraine's pro-Russian president. This marked the first forcible change of European borders since World War II and signaled Vladimir Putin's determination to reassert Russian influence in former Soviet states. The administration responded with economic sanctions and NATO reinforcements in Eastern Europe, but ruled out direct military confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia. The Ukraine crisis revealed the limits of American power in Russia's near abroad and strained the NATO alliance, as European nations dependent on Russian energy hesitated to impose severe penalties. It also vindicated Obama's earlier caution about expanding NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia - moves he had resisted despite pressure from hawks. The conflict settled into a frozen state, with Russia occupying Crimea and supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine while facing international isolation and economic costs. These crises unfolded against a backdrop of broader geopolitical shifts. China's growing assertiveness in Asia, Europe's internal challenges, and the continuing fallout from the Arab Spring all suggested a world where American primacy was increasingly contested. Obama articulated a foreign policy approach that recognized these limitations, famously summarized as "don't do stupid stuff" - avoiding costly errors rather than pursuing transformative interventions. Critics derided this as a doctrine of retreat, arguing that America was abdicating its leadership role. Defenders saw it as a necessary correction after the overreach of the Iraq War - a more sustainable approach that preserved American power by using it more selectively. Obama himself framed it as a rebalancing: "We have to be able to distinguish between these problems analytically, so that we're not using a pliers where we need a hammer, or we're not using a battalion where what we should be doing is partnering with the local government." This period revealed the fundamental tension in America's post-Cold War foreign policy: between the ambition to shape world events and the recognition of limits to American power. The administration increasingly focused on areas where diplomatic engagement could yield results - climate change, opening to Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal - while being more selective about military interventions.

Chapter 6: Legacy and Transition: The Final Chapter (2016-2017)

The final year of the Obama presidency was defined by efforts to secure his foreign policy legacy while confronting the unexpected rise of Donald Trump, whose "America First" platform directly challenged core principles of Obama's approach. The administration worked feverishly to institutionalize its achievements - implementing the Iran nuclear deal, consolidating the opening with Cuba, and finalizing the Paris Climate Agreement - knowing these initiatives might be vulnerable under a successor with different priorities. Climate change had emerged as a top priority in Obama's final years. After the disappointment of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, his administration pursued a different approach leading to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Rather than seeking a binding treaty requiring Senate ratification, the agreement relied on voluntary national commitments with regular review mechanisms. Most critically, Obama secured China's participation through personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping - a breakthrough that made global action possible since the two countries together accounted for nearly half of global carbon emissions. The rise of nationalist and populist movements worldwide presented a growing challenge to Obama's internationalist vision. Britain's June 2016 vote to leave the European Union shocked the administration and signaled deepening resistance to globalization and integration. Similar forces were gaining strength across Europe, threatening the post-World War II liberal order. In the Middle East, the initial promise of the Arab Spring had largely given way to renewed authoritarianism, civil war, or state collapse. Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. election represented perhaps the most direct challenge to American democracy during Obama's tenure. The administration became aware of Russian hacking and disinformation campaigns during the summer of 2016 but faced difficult choices about how to respond without appearing to intervene in the election on Hillary Clinton's behalf. Obama personally warned Putin to stop the interference at a September G20 meeting, and in December imposed sanctions on Russia. However, these measures came too late to affect the election outcome. Trump's victory in November 2016 cast a long shadow over Obama's foreign policy legacy. The president-elect had criticized NATO, praised Putin, promised to tear up the Iran deal, reverse the Cuba opening, and withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Obama's final foreign trip as president in November 2016 - to Greece, Germany, and Peru - became a somber farewell tour. In Athens, he defended democracy's resilience despite its imperfections. In Berlin, he reassured a visibly emotional Angela Merkel, who would soon become the de facto leader of the liberal international order. On the flight home from Lima, Obama revealed a rare moment of doubt, asking: "What if we were wrong?" He wondered if perhaps they had pushed too far toward a cosmopolitan globalism that had lost touch with people's desire for national identity and community. This question reflected the central tension of Obama's foreign policy: his belief in universal values and international cooperation confronting a world increasingly drawn to nationalism, tribalism, and zero-sum competition. The transition process itself proved challenging, with minimal interaction between outgoing and incoming teams. Obama took several significant actions in his final weeks to secure elements of his legacy - imposing sanctions on Russia for election interference, commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence, and designating new national monuments. On January 20, 2017, as he departed Washington following Trump's inauguration, Obama appeared simultaneously relieved to be free of the presidency's burdens and concerned about what lay ahead for the country and world he had led for eight years.

Summary

The story of American foreign policy under President Obama reveals the persistent tension between idealism and pragmatism that has characterized America's role in the world. Beginning with transformational ambitions to end wars, rebuild alliances, and engage adversaries, Obama confronted a series of crises that tested his vision - from the 2008 financial collapse to the Arab Spring, from Russia's aggression in Ukraine to the rise of ISIS. Throughout these challenges, he maintained a consistent approach: deliberative decision-making, preference for diplomacy over force, multilateral action rather than unilateral intervention, and a focus on long-term trends rather than short-term pressures. This approach yielded significant achievements like the Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate agreement, but also left unresolved problems, particularly in Syria where humanitarian catastrophe unfolded despite American diplomatic efforts. The Obama era offers enduring lessons about the nature of American power in the 21st century. First, military force has significant limitations as a tool for reshaping complex societies, particularly in regions with deep sectarian divisions and weak institutions. Second, patient diplomacy can achieve results that decades of hostility and isolation cannot, as demonstrated by the breakthroughs with Iran and Cuba. Third, American leadership remains essential in addressing global challenges like climate change, but must be exercised through coalition-building rather than unilateral action. Finally, the liberal international order that America helped build after World War II requires constant maintenance and renewal, especially as nationalist movements gain strength worldwide. As new challenges emerge in an increasingly multipolar world, these insights remind us that effective foreign policy requires both principled commitment and pragmatic flexibility, along with a clear-eyed understanding of both American power and its limits.

About Author

Loading...

Ben Rhodes

From 2009 to 2017, Ben Rhodes served as deputy national security advisor to President Barack Obama, overseeing the administration’s national security communications, speechwriting, public diplomacy, and global engagement programming. Prior to joining the Obama administration, from 2007 to 2008 Rhodes was a senior speechwriter and foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign. Before joining then–Senator Obama’s campaign, he worked for former congressman Lee Hamilton from 2002 to 2007. He was the co-author, with Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, of Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. A native New Yorker, Rhodes has a BA from Rice University and an MFA from New York University.

Read more

Related Books by Ben Rhodes

Loading...

After the Fall

Ben Rhodes

Being American in the World We've Made

★★★★☆4.2