Detailing the hard policy choices that Obama faces this September that may antagonize the Left of the Democratic party, Michael Barone comments on Afghanistan:

Obama is averse to using the V-word (victory) and the American Left since the Vietnam years has not wanted to see America victorious in war. They think it makes us look chauvinistic and proud about our nation when we should be, as Obama often has been, apologetic for its sins. But accepting a recommendation for more troops would set him on a course where victory is the only acceptable result, which will make the angry Left angry at him.

Reading between the lines of stories on Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendations, it seems likely that the White House has been pressuring him not to ask for more troops and that he will do so anyway, and with the approval of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Obama, having already dispatched more troops there, will be asked to double down on a policy that public opinion polls show is unpopular with Democratic voters, and with some conservatives, like columnist George Will, as well.

And on Iran:

The popular opposition to the rigged Iranian elections in June and the internal turmoil within the mullah regime make it unlikely that Obama will have any reliable negotiating partner. And as George Perkovich of the dovish Carnegie Endowment says, “The Iranians show no sign that they’re going to be genuinely prepared to negotiate.” They’re more interested in getting nukes than in getting to yes, even with a president with an Arabic middle name.

Barone’s analysis suggests that while Obama’s current travails and priorities center on domestic issues, he will not be able to escape serious foreign-policy challenges, which may, in turn, aggravate the growing disenchantment of the Left. And these foreign-policy challenges make it that much harder for Obama to set the agenda and control the debate.

However accommodating Obama would like to be to our foes and however conflict-averse he appears (whatever the international conflict, no matter how fundamental, the answer is the same: ingratiate himself with the troublemakers), he can’t escape the responsibility to lead America in war or ignore the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. We have already seen how closing Guantanamo and waging war, not on terror but on the Bush administration and the CIA, have sucked up precious attention and potentially depleted (further) his standing with Independents.

But this is an old story — many presidents would like to avoid the snare of knotty foreign-policy issues. Few succeed. The world and specifically America’s enemies don’t give a hoot about our president’s legislative priorities. If Obama does not demonstrate resolve on these and other foreign-policy challenges, he will only enhance the perception that he is losing his grip on events and failing to live up to his billing as a transformative president. And despite his fondest hopes, his hardest challenges won’t melt away with platitudinous phrases and offers of “engagement.” By now, even Obama must be realizing that this isn’t the way the world works.