Your assessment and predictions for Iraq is unrealistically rosy. Iraq has a COR, but has not yet formed a government. This may seem like a fairly benign political stall-out, but it more probably presages seriously debilitating conflict and possibly violence. As for US-Iraq relations – although it is largely neutral, it will probably decline as external influences take hold with the US drawdown. Your comparison of the partisan approaches is too narrow. It should never be a black-white, one-zero proposition. No, the GOP alternative was not to stay longer - it was to stay for as long as it takes. Primarily, it was only to hide the exact timeline. No matter what, the solution should not be looked at through a partisan lens, but should have incorporated an approach tailored to the progress of the Iraqi government. Instead, we are beholden to an insipid deadline, which will more overtly bite us in the ass in Afghanistan. Many soldiers as they come home (and they become local voters) will be glad to come home of course, but they will shake their heads knowing they probably left too soon with work undone and Iraqis unsecured.
Successful handling of the Iran problem means to engage Iran such that they negotiate and not threaten the world. Less than that, it cannot be considered progress. Even unilateral sanctions and coopting multilateral sanctions is just a technique, and as Obama applies it, it is bereft of any vision or inspiration. No, again, the GOP alternative is not war. It is a demonstration and indication of strength across a broad front – not just economically, but militarily and it should include an acknowledgment of Iran’s theocratic imperialism and regional hegemonic ambitions. Ask Americans if they think we are successfully handling Iran – I don’t think a majority would say yes. Just because Obama is not in hot war with Iran, doesn’t make him a statesman. And Israel – the most basic thing we must understand is that Israel will do what Israel will do. They don’t practice forbearance because Obama demands it, they refrain because it is not, at this moment, tactically prudent to act. Once it is, look out…
God forbid Obama takes this assessment you’ve come up with as a measure of his foreign policy progress. Because if he did, he'd just stop working and play golf.

Much like Iraq, Obama is following in the path created by Bush. Bush, during the height of anti-americanism, managed 3 rounds of sanctions against Iran. The most impressive being referring the Iran nuclear case to the security council itself. Of course, this policy achieved absolutely nothing in terms of actually resolving the problem, but Obama seems intent on following it.

"the fact is that Iran today is far weaker and more isolated than it was when Obama took office"

Iran is enriching to 20% levels rights now and is increasing its stockpile of uranium daily. It's ballistic missile program is also advancing, with plans of shooting more satellites into space these coming months.

In terms of isolation, they have branched out to Turkey and now Brazil.

Face it, the difference between Obama's approach to Iran and Bush's is minor variations in style.

In any case, Iran was never really an issue in 2008 and it won't be in 2012. Domestic issues will trump it.

The domestic economy would matter more than foreign policy in the elections.

According to Walt: "Hardly anyone expects the U.S. economy to rebound rapidly over the next couple of years, and there is still some danger of a "double-dip" recession."

Remind me please what strategic changes Obama made to the prosecution of the Iraq war? For the most part all Obama did there was allow a plan already formulated to run its course. Regardless of where credit is to be assigned, is it a victory in that it created a peaceful and functioning democratic country that will withstand the test of time? Almost certainly not. But I think it is a political victory in that the U.S. can at least claim to be getting out (regardless of how many "advisers" remain in country) in a fashion that doesn't look too much like defeat. Whether you consider the later a true victory is probably contingent on how much of a cynic you are.

With regards to Iran, I don't really see that anything Obama has done has improved the situation there. I also don't really think that we could have positively influenced the situation there. The only thing Obama can say is that he didn't start a war there, which despite claims to the contrary, I don't think is an idea strongly embraced by that many in the upper echelon of the Republican Party.

The more interesting question is Afghanistan. He's lost big there and there's no way around it. During the election, he most likely accepted that given his opposition to all things Iraq and the nature of American politics, his only chance at election was to embrace a hawkish position on at least one issue. The only reasonable choice at the time was Afghanistan. Regardless of what he felt about American prospects were for victory there, what was his alternative? If he had advocated pulling out immediately he would have likely lost the election and McCain would have followed the same double-down strategy anyway and America would have been no better off. His mistake came during the lengthy Afghanistan policy review: he should have found that given the limitations of what America was willing to commit to that war, strategic or even political victory there was impossible and changed his position to "we need to get out now." Of course things in Afghanistan would have tanked immediately (as they are going to whenever we leave) and he would have been denounced as a coward and a pacifist. This coupled with the likely economic situation would almost certainly cost him the next election, but fewer Americans would be dead and he would be a brave man for having done it.

And as far as Israel/Palestine, without the willingness to pay the huge political cost of playing tough with Israel, there was no victory to be had there either. Note that I don't attribute all or most of the problems there to Israel, but any approach that coddles them will go nowhere fast.

End result: I call it 0 for 4 too.

Before someone posts that Republicans are all maniacal warmongers and of course they want to bomb Iran, yes I admit many Republicans talk tough. It is often politically advantageous to do so when not in power, but I don't really think many (who don't happen to hail from Alaska) would do it.

This is not an unperceptive analysis, though under most circumstances Americans facing economic stress or even uncertainty give foreign policy little thought unless American soldiers are dying in large numbers. That's why, politically, Afghanistan matters somewhat this fall and the other issues don't.

There is one qualification to this statement, though, and in some states and Congressional districts it may be important. Electoral politics is now more a science than an art; it can be known with some certainty what kinds of appeals will work in elections with 60% turnout, and how they differ from those that will work in elections with 35-40% turnout. The elections in 2010 will be closer to the latter, which means the minority of registered voters who vote in every election will have a greater influence on the outcome of close races.

The Republicans campaign apparatus understands this, which is the main reason we see appeals to some fairly base prejudices. Few Republicans actually have strong anti-Muslim attitudes (or are convinced that Barack Obama is an alien), but if they all vote in an election and a lower percentage of other voters do, anti-Muslim voters could turn a close race.

2012 will be a Presidential election year, which means turnout will be much higher. This, in turn, will mean that extreme attitudes of all kinds are likely to become political liabilities, even if they succeed in winning some elections in this year's mid-terms. Too many Republicans are so anxious for short-term gains this year that will set the GOP up for huge losses in 2012 and afterward.

With respect to 2012, also, Republicans will have to face the question of how they feel about the legacy left by the Bush administration. So far, they really have not done this. As Marc Lynch suggests, the Bush record is not a great debating point against Obama and the Democrats. Up to now, Republicans have dealt with this by not dealing with it (or, as on FP's Shadow Government blog, by complaining about each unfavorable reference to Bush and his record by anyone. This tactic will probably prove even less productive). They'll need to, and it won't be easy.

Republicans enjoyed a long run of political success years ago, getting credit for the foreign policy prowess of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan and gaining by the comparison with the disaster that befell the country under the Democrats in the 1960s and (to a lesser extent) the Carter administration's perceived haplessness. We're not in that world anymore. It will take more than Arab disappointment to make American voters compare Obama's foreign policy record with Bush's and decide that Bush's is what they want to go back to. If Republicans want to stand for something other than "back to Bush" they need to decide what -- and they're not even close to do that.

GOP bloggers like to talk about winning wars, but if you read any speech by Obama he NEVER talks about winning, he talks about ending wars. That is the more realistic view of war -- it isn't a game fellas, in war everyone loses.

In Iraq and Afghanistan there is nothing to be gained by putting US troops between Iraqi's or Afghans who want to kill each other, except for making both sides hate us and increasing the body count.

The Afghan goal is not "winning." The goal is to provide us a way out of the mess we are currently in while avoiding a disasterous expansion of the instability. Anyone who thinks packing up and leaving was a real option needs to think about how that would have impacted not just Afghanistan, but Pakistan. The Pakistani army has its hands full just trying to control some of the territories. The extremists had been making forays into the larger cities to carry out attacks before we upped our forces in Afghanistan. What do you think would happen if the US just packed up and left the region? Anyone who thinks these radical Islamists would just be happy just getting back into Afghanistan has no clue as to the value a destabilized Pakistan would provide them. Think nuclear and making the infidels pay dearly. Now maybe its more clear why Obama had no choice but to stay put in Afghanistan for some additional time.

Right now the peace talks in the Middle East are going nowhere and direct talks will certainly not lead to any peace based on where things stand now. There will be time to deal with that problem later after the direct peace talks start. Keep in mind, the first step of these efforts was not to get Palestinians and Israeli's to sit down and talk. Even if they hammered out a peace deal, the people in both countries would not accept it.

The first step in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was to ease tensions, build TRUST and encourage dialog. The peace will take longer. You can't plant corn in a barren field and you can't improve the soil for planting and reap your crop in short order. Currently, you have hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, an apartheid system of governance there and lots of distrust, anger and hate. You start this by tempering those emotions before any peace has a chance in hell of working. You also have to deal with the Gaza issue as the peace must be comprehensive, not partial.

Anyone who has paid any attention to the Middle East knows the US has been using Egypt as our go-between to talk with Hamas, feeling them out to see what is possible. Many people think the fly over of Saudia Arabia was for a possible Israeli strike at Iran. No, it was a modest effort to improve relations between Saudia Arabia and Israel. No exchange of Ambassadors, but a partial improvement by allowing Israeli planes to fly over Saudi airspace. The US has been working to try and get full help from the Arab nations to facilitate peace in the region. Expect more along these lines in coming months.

Progress in peace comes in small steps not large leaps. Read what Clinton has said -- "we need to build trust in the region." Does that sound to you like someone committed to immediate talks and peace deals? The investments and the easing of pressure in the West Bank and Gaza are part and parcel to building that TRUST. The US has committed hundreds of millions to those efforts and one of its leading political figures to work on it full time.

Wars end when one side is no longer able to carry out the conflict, but that doesn't mean the side that can continue has won. It merely means one side has lost less of its ability to fight. Peace (which is the ultimate outcome of war) happens when the parties involved resolve the differences that led to war. Ending war means nothing. Look at the Middle East, how many wars have been fought and yet no peace.

If you don't think Pakistan is in better shape today than 1 year ago you are delusional. In early 2009, a continual, unending string of terrorist attacks tore Pakistan. Suicide bombings were occurring at a frequency of 1-2 per week. There were serious concerns about the Pakistani government's ability to deal with this problem and militants gaining access to its nuclear material. Today, terrorist attacks in major Pakistani cities are WAY DOWN. The terrorists are suffering from pressure being placed on them from both sides and drone attacks that have disrupted their ability to operate freely in the tribal areas. Pakistan is not stable yet, but it is moving in that direction instead of toward the instability it was in early 2009. The Taliban and al Qaeda can no longer even be certain the local elders will support them and many have turned against them in Pakistan, burned their homes and cooperated with the Pakistani army to help eliminate them.

What Obama is doing has been called "cooperative development." This is a system where you encourage greater cooperation to solve problems and greater pressure to isolate and marginalize those who decide to do whatever they like. The reason the peace talks WILL PROGRESS is because this approach to addressing issues means Obama will eventually have to place pressure on Israel to "cooperate". Obama has reached out to all parties and he has encouraged working together rather than at odds with one another.

Today, there is an unparalleled level of cooperation between the US and other major nations in the world that has not been seen in decades. Many would have considered this an impossible reality just 2 years ago. As time progresses, efforts will be made to build trust and encourage greater cooperation to bring the parties together. Peace and cooperation will happen because more is gained by embracing them. Meanwhile, not cooperating is simply not worth the cost of one’s adherence to rigid ideologies.