Editorial: Why Did Obama solve Decades of diplomatic trouble?

　　This summer has been a harvest season for Mr Obama's diplomacy. First, the United States reconciled and restored diplomatic relations with its old enemy Cuba, resolving the thorniest problem in its neighborhood diplomacy in half a century. Third, we worked to reach a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue, setting a good example of diplomatic efforts to resolve complex international hotspot issues.

　　Of course, the follow-up of the two diplomatic incidents will not be smooth. Conservative MEMBERS of the U.S. Congress are likely to block the appointment of an ambassador to Cuba, and may create obstacles to the legal acceptance of the Iranian nuclear deal. But either way, the two events would rank as the Obama administration's most notable achievements in foreign policy.

　　Cuba and Iran are two long-standing problems, both dating back decades, and successive US presidents have tried in vain to address them. Why did the final qualitative change happen on Mr Obama's watch? There are three main reasons.

　　First, the changing balance of power in the international landscape has created a sense of urgency for the parties concerned to resolve the issue. Increasingly aware of the difficulty of maintaining global leadership, the US has turned to greater use of smart power, emphasis on the legitimacy of its actions and international appeal, and the pursuit of multilateralism. While Cuba and Iran are rich in resources but slow down in economic development mainly for foreign policy reasons. It is fair to say that as times change, each party has a better idea of what it really wants

　　The second is the pragmatic diplomatic line of the Obama administration. Mr Obama begins his presidency with a badly damaged FOREIGN policy inherited from Mr Bush. Mr Obama knows that his predecessor's muscular, military-first approach left America's diplomacy in a passive position, and that excessive use of force undermined America's global image and leadership. Therefore, the key word of his foreign policy during his first term was "withdrawal", withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and making a moderate strategic contraction. In the second term, the key word of foreign policy should be "talk", giving priority to negotiations and avoiding direct military intervention, especially the deployment of ground troops, which is evident in the Syrian issue. It was criticized for being weak, but it helped solve both Cuba and Iran problems.

　　The third is Mr Obama's personal factor. Obama was born in the grassroots, and the ups and downs of his childhood life had a subtle influence on the shaping of his character. He was cautious in dealing with things, but he was not decisive enough and his executive power was a little weak. In addition, unlike his predecessors George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, he was a lawyer and a senator and lacks administrative experience. This was his weakness, but in some ways it became his strength: his emphasis on listening, his tolerance of dissent, his poise. In foreign policy, he has avoided the use of force and emphasised negotiations.

　　In addition, the most pressing reality is that Facing both houses of A Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Obama has realized that he can't do much on the domestic front and has turned to foreign policy as a way to leave a legacy.

　　In short, it takes two to tango. Rouhani and Castro are also facing internal pressure, after all, the people's food is the most real need, they happen to agree with Obama, handshake is understandable.

　　Mr Obama has had strong outside help in resolving diplomatic relations with Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal. The solution to both problems, it seems, is in the right place at the right time. It is not clear whether this will affect the leaders of America's remaining enemies, North Korea and even Russia, after all, the current Obama seems to be the "most talkative" American leader in history.