What is a leader? To some, a leader is defined as someone who is able to facilitate positive change in those surrounding him or her. By this definition, many of our so-called leaders fail miserably. Among the worst of these failures sits our current President Barack Obama. In addition to his terrible domestic failures, Obama has experienced many other failures in his policies abroad. Without a doubt, these failures in foreign policies will not lead to a legacy of international leadership and positive change abroad, but one of constant disappointment, defeat and missteps.

The most significant defeat of Obama’s foreign policy deals with the Middle East and Al Qaeda extremist groups. Even though Obama told us in a speech last spring that the war against terrorism is over, Al Qaeda has been making an alarming comeback in many regions. For example, after our troops were pulled out of Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a radical Al Qaeda sect, began establishing itself within the weakened country. This group of extremists has claimed responsibility for many attacks carried out this year in Iraq, killing nearly 6,200 people. Similar resurgences of Al Qaeda have been found in Syria as well. In fact, some have even suggested that the Al Qaeda forces in this region may be as large as 12,000. As a result, Ayman al-Zawahri, a prominent member of Al Qaeda, even called Syria a promising staging ground for future attacks. Likewise in parts of Africa, Al Qaeda is growing as well. Due to a weak central government, Libya and Nigeria are beginning to fall under the control of these terrorist regimes. However, this pales in comparison to Yemen, where 56 people were killed as a result of a terrorist attack last Thursday. It almost seems like President Obama and his failed leadership is giving Al Qaeda a free pass, and it may cost Americans their safety.

Allowing terrorist sects new safe havens is one thing, but directly contributing to their development of a weapon is another. Recently, Obama proposed a deal in which Iran would stop the development of its nuclear program in exchange for the easing of sanctions placed on them. However, many agree that this relief would backfire, and it would allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon with ease and put Israel in the crosshairs. Obama defended this deal by saying, “We have to not constantly assume that it’s not possible for Iran, like any country, to change over time.” Is he really that naïve? While I’m not against giving people second chances, I’m not willing to go hand a weapon of mass destruction to those who wanted me to die yesterday. This absurd plan has drawn opposition from both parties for obvious reasons and it is just another example of poor leadership.

Looking back at the definition of a leader which I outlined earlier, one can easily see that Obama will not go down in history a strong leader abroad. Rather, he might go down in history as the president who gave Al Qaeda a free pass and who nearly handed Iran a nuclear weapon.