Three autumns ago, Washington was paralyzed with indecision about what to do about a losing war -- in Iraq. A congressionally mandated commission held hearings and weighed options; none of them seemed good. At the White House, President Bush presided over a review that had extended for months as generals and political aides debated whether to escalate or wind down the U.S. commitment. Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers were dying by the scores -- and Iraqis by the thousands.

Iran has been controlled since June by a hard-line clique of extremist clerics and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard who believe they are destined to make their country a nuclear power that dominates the Middle East. It follows that their opposition -- a mass movement that has been marching to slogans such as "death to the dictator" and "no to Lebanon, no to Gaza" -- is bound to be a more plausible partner for the rapproachement that the Obama administration is seeking.

"One of the lessons of Vietnam," said Democratic Sen. John Kerry, "is if you are going to send American forces into harm's way, you don't do it in a limited way. You don't do it tying hands behind your back ahead of time. You don't ask people to give their lives for something less than the prospect of success."

As the president and his National Security Council privately debate whether to send tens of thousands of troops to war, America's European allies watch with a mixture of anxiety and anguish. They know that if the deployment goes forward, they will be asked to make their own difficult and politically costly contributions of soldiers or other personnel. But they are, if anything, even more worried that the American president will choose a feckless strategy for what they consider a critical mission. And they are frustrated that they must watch and wait -- and wait and wait -- for the president to make up his mind.

The Obama administration's positive tone following its first diplomatic encounter with Iran covers a deep and growing gloom in Washington and European capitals. Seven hours of palaver in Geneva haven't altered an emerging conclusion: None of the steps the West is considering to stop the Iranian nuclear program is likely to work.

When it was launched last December, Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip looked to most people in Washington to be risky, counterproductive and doomed to futility. Not only pundits like me but senior officials of the Bush administration predicted that the Israeli army would not succeed either in toppling Gaza's Hamas government or in eliminating its capacity to launch missiles at Israeli cities. Instead it would subject the Jewish state to another tidal wave of international opprobrium and risk its relations with West Bank Palestinians and Egypt.

Just over two years ago Barack Obama triggered the first and most enduring foreign policy debate of the presidential campaign when he was asked whether he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

Starting in September, President Obama will face a politically fateful battle in Congress over health-care reform. There is also the escalating war in Afghanistan and the tricky task of "responsibly" extracting some of the 130,000 remaining U.S. troops from Iraq. A showdown is approaching with Iran, which shows no sign of responding to a September deadline for opening negotiations on its nuclear program. All of that is on top of nursing the still-convalescing economy.

Imagine that the Iraqi prime minister comes to Washington for a full menu of meetings with a new American administration. The war in his country is not yet over; 130,000 U.S. troops remain in place; a fateful national election is on the horizon. The night of their summit meeting, the U.S. president holds a televised news conference: Not one question concerns Iraq. Two days later, following the Iraqi's working session with the secretary of state, a joint appearance before the media leads to a newsmaking statement -- about U.S. policy in Honduras.

As the Obama administration and a host of Latin American governments campaigned to reverse the coup in Honduras, another democratically elected Latin leader embarked on a lonely effort to draw attention to the double standard that has lately governed violations of political and human rights in the region.

The upheaval in Iran offers the Obama administration a host of fresh foreign policy opportunities. Not the least of them is a chance to creep away from the corner into which it has painted itself in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Mahmoud Abbas says there is nothing for him to do.

Today Barack Obama will begin a diplomatic relationship that is likely to be as complex, as vexing and possibly as troubled as any he will have during the first years of his presidency. His meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu won't produce the blow-up some expect; a smooth veneer of harmony is more likely. Yet it will quietly inaugurate a contest of wills between two very different politicians -- one that could help determine whether the Middle East shifts toward an era of negotiation and detente, or of deepening conflict.

After spending most of the past week in Washington, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan can be excused if they leave town looking a little smug.

President Obama pointed out last week that while the "typical president" has to handle two or three big problems at once, he has had to juggle "seven or eight." Still, the new administration is managing to generate an impressive amount of energy and activism across that broad field. In foreign affairs, that raises a compelling question: Do the levers of American influence still work?

New American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors -- and Barack Obama has been no exception. In his first three months he has quickly taken steps to correct the errors in George W. Bush's foreign policy, as seen by Democrats. He has collected easy dividends from his base, U.S. allies in Europe and a global following for not being "unilateralist" or war-mongering or scornful of dialogue with enemies.

Barack Obama has proved in the past few days that he can work smoothly and productively with a wide range of foreign leaders -- provided that he allows them to set the agenda.

Three time bombs are buried within the new and ambitious strategy for Afghanistan that President Obama unveiled Friday. Their detonation -- which would cripple the international mission to stabilize the country and perhaps cripple Obama's presidency -- is not inevitable. But defusing them will take an exceptional performance by U.S. military commanders and diplomats, some skillful politicking by the president -- and maybe a little of the unexpected good fortune that blessed the U.S. surge in Iraq.

MAYDAN SHAR, Afghanistan -- Though the president has yet to formally spell out his strategy, the Obama administration's attempt to turn around a failing war is already beginning here, at a dusty crossroads 25 miles southwest of Kabul.

Washington has spent the past couple of weeks debating whether Barack Obama's ambitious agenda and political strategy are more comparable to those of Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Oddly, hardly anyone is talking about the ways in which Obama is beginning to resemble the man who just vacated the White House.