More than five months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Time magazine published a major article about the Republican style of U.S. diplomacy (April 2, 2001). Its author, Johanna McGeary, defined international diplomacy in the introductory paragraph: "Diplomacy is an art form, a subtle construct of gestures and words, body language and rhetoric carefully arranged for a single purpose: to persuade another country to behave the way you want ... How do you convey your views so they're firm and forceful without putting the other side's back up?" ("Dubya Talks the Talk," emphasis added throughout).

The Time feature article was basically about former President George W. Bush's tough diplomatic style. Current President Barack Obama's own style brings out the sharp contrast of his administration's fundamental approach to international diplomacy. Scrapping the Bush administration's planned placement of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic to help protect Europe and Israel from the Iranian missile threat represents a major turning point in Washington's way of dealing with crucial world problems.

President Obama appears to want to rely on sanctions to change Iranian behavior. But do sanctions work? Frankly, no! There is a steady flow of illegal exports to rogue regimes already under sanctions. There was a tenfold increase in such exports to Tehran even during the Bush years.

The reaction from the right to the missile pullout was both sharp and predictable. Many in both Warsaw and Prague felt that America had betrayed them. A headline in The Daily Telegraph read: "US Missile Shield: Appeasement Is Alive And Well in Barack Obama's White House. President Barack Obama's Decision to Abandon the Missile Shield Will Weaken the US and Embolden Its Enemies" (Sept. 18, 2009). A day later the paper's official editorial stated that "Obama is gambling with Europe's security."

London Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens expressed clear-sighted points about America's role in the Middle East—points that apply to the U.S. global position as well. He stated: "But the shifting balance of power is about more than Iran's nuclear ambitions and its president's Holocaust denial. American power in the region has been hobbled by the war in Iraq, the insurgency in Afghanistan and by a consequent perception among Arab states that Washington cannot deliver" ("Four Things You Must Know About the Global Puzzle," Sept. 25, 2009).

Even America's closest ally in the Middle East rejected President Obama's call to halt settlement expansion. "The Israeli prime minister's rebuff signalled that he, too, sees the US as a waning power" (ibid.).

The following questions must be asked: Will Washington's recent approach to international diplomacy really work in the long run? Will America be able to maintain its dominant position in the world through this style of diplomacy? Will this approach persuade rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea to respond positively and mend their ways?

To understand both the historic and prophetic background to these current international dilemmas and where they are taking America, request or download our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. (Sources: The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times [both London], Time.)