Until recently, I have maintained an attitude of resolute optimism about the myriad challenges of today's world. I told myself that in trying times, politicians around the globe will surely summon their inner statesmen and women and commit themselves to the arduous search for solutions. A more complex world of dispersed power requires new styles of leadership, and the dynamism in the American cultural DNA will help us develop them, in cooperation with others.

Because this is our only hope, I have no alternative but to remain in touch with my inner optimist. So consider this post a pessimistic interlude -- a release valve for darker thoughts, maybe worthwhile if only to remind us what's at stake. In other words, what if we tried to build an international community, and nobody came? I love how people in other countries feel so great about President Obama. It's not clear, though, that they understand how dependent his success is on their help. One of the distinguishing features of Obama's campaign was the prominent use of the first person plural; he ran on a platform on what we needed to do, because he couldn't do them on his own. In the international realm, unless Obama's calls for help are met with greater responsiveness, the Nobel prize really will be a poison chalice. Here's what I mean...

In non-proliferation, the phrase that really gets me is when people say that China (or Russia) "does not want" a nuclear-armed Iran (or North Korea). This doesn't really mean very much as a mere preferred outcome; it begs the question, what will you do to help bring it about? Again, President Obama has taken a more conciliatory and respectful approach not because diplomacy is its own reward, but because it's the only way to find workable compromises.

Giving diplomacy a chance also tests the intentions of the other guy. A few weeks ago, signals from Iran were still ambiguous enough that new sanctions seemed premature to me. As Iranian leaders close the door on last month's crucial agreement to transfer their uranium to France and Russia in exchange for fuel rods, the time to talk sanctions is here, and we need to know what Russian and Chinese preferences really mean in practical terms.

And then on Israel and Palestine, I read with great interest fellow Cafe blogger Bernard Avishai's recent post in response to Tom Friedman and Roger Cohen. Bernard was arguing against the NY Times columnists' plague-on-all-their-houses proposal to suspend US peacemaking efforts. Avishai's is the more mature and patient perspective, and normally I favor patience and maturity. I'm surprised to find myself feeling this way, but I gotta say, looking at the last several months, if all we get for our troubles is resistance and flak, it's tempting to say the hell with it. [I know, I know, I'm sounding like a grumpy middle-aged man.]

As these questions gnaw at me, I also start to wonder about how America will sustain its role as the foundation of the international system. It's a dubious premise for some people, but it's clear to me that in many ways (you'll-miss-it-when-it's-gone kinds of ways) the United States serves as glue for the geopolitical order. And I'm growing less confident that our own domestic politics will sustain the associated international engagement and commitment.

It won't be the reawakening of America's historical isolationism, sometimes cited as a tendency that's merely in remission. Having followed opinion polls over the years, I think the voting public has basically the right instincts. Looking at the 2008 election, voters were clearly uncomfortable with the widespread international mistrust that Bush foreign policy had generated; they wanted America to be the good guys. But improving international perceptions is different from providing international leadership, and I can imagine the US turning inward and relinquishing the role of global leader.

American retreat from the world wouldn't come all at once. Retrenchment instead would creep up gradually. Indeed, it's possible that the pull-back has already started. For instance, it's not clear that our political system is still able to ratify significant treaties. Likewise, I worry about whether we will really commit to rebuilding our corps of diplomatic and development professionals. Down the line, I could imagine the United States reducing its forward deployments of military bases around the world -- not an abrupt severing of alliances, but reducing overextension. I don't advocate any of this and worry that the world's problems would worsen as a result. But I'm started to get seriously concerned that this is where we might be headed.

Whew, thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I'll go back to being my regular cheery self now.