The current global financial crisis mimics the Great Depression of the 1930s. Papers without value, mortgages that had been sold several times, trillions of dollars wasted ... The crisis that was experienced during the first quarter of the last century paved the way for a world war that took millions of lives. Today, we have two camps: those who are afraid of a similar outcome versus those who see the election of Barak Obama as "a last chance". The number of people outside the US who view Obama's election as a chance for positive change is higher than that in the US; and election results reveal this trend. For the first time in American history, the percentage of votes given to the President (Obama: 52%) are lower than the votes given to the his party (Democrats: 58%). This is taken by some as evidence of a degree of hesitation in the minds of some voters towards Obama.
Obama, who will assume the presidency under these conditions, will be forced to make decisions on significant domestic and foreign policy puzzles in line with the new international conjuncture:

1.The United States economy and global crisis;
2.Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan;
3.The Middle East problem and Islam;
4.The stand-off with Russia;
5.Restructuring of Transatlantic relations.
Crisis
The global economic crisis, putting aside its international impact, directly affected the outcome of the US Presidential election. The economic crisis was a key determinant in Obama's election. Even Sarah Palin easily spotted this fact. However, the path that the White House will follow from this point on will critical; and this is what Obama's future also hinges on.
The highest-most ceiling of the aid package was quoted as 300 billion dollars by Nancy Pelosi. However, when President-elect Obama enters the White House, the aid package will increase up to 500 billion dollars. However, this aid package, which represents 4% of the US GDP, will not be enough to set the economy on the right track. We expect that other aid packages will follow and in 2009, we can expect to see aid for the ailing US economy reach one trillion dollars. Despite the interventions, the US economy will shrink by 3% by the last quarter of 2008 and 1.5 % during the first quarter of 2009. This means that unemployment will reach 8% in 2009. Consequently, Obama will have a very real opportunity, as well as the responsibility, to realize his promise to ease the financial crunch felt by most middle-class Americans. However, the measure topping the Democrats agenda will be to lower social security taxes. The incoming administration will direct aid funds to three principle areas:

1.Consumer Debts;
2.Non-bank Financial Corporations;
3.House owners, who failed to pay their mortgage debt
Isolationism
The crisis of the 1930s ignited the path towards the Second World War. The number of people who hold the belief that the new crisis will have a similar catastrophic result should not be underestimated. Actually, the growing budget deficit offered warning signs that the crisis would arrive even before the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan placed a crippling burden on the US budget. The US was faced with two choices: Either isolate itself and heal its wounds or follow expansionist policies through the use of force. The Republican administration, unlike in the course of events of the 1930s, opted for war before the crisis got bigger. As a result, the inevitable crisis snowballed and now stands in front of the US, begging urgent attention.
For those who favored the isolationist option all along, Obama is a sight for sore eyes. The expectation of the American people is that the prosperity they have been accustomed to will be stimulated, without the fear of an encroaching recession. From this point of view, the process of withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan has been started. Although the American public welcomes news of the much-awaited withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by end 2011 according to the recent Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), Iraq's neighboring states have some grave concerns about what lies ahead for Iraq, and in terms of any spillover effect for the region. Specifically, Turkey, the only NATO member in the region warns that a poorly planned and hasty withdrawal could trigger an onslaught of bigger problems. According to Ankara, a messy withdrawal could threaten the fragile balance of power between the various factions in Iraq, which was reached through an already painstaking process and with Herculean effort. The concern is that a sudden shift in the power balance may cause a dismemberment of Iraq into three between the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. A divided Iraq-with a Shiite-controlled southern region holding organic ties with Iran; a central region with a Sunni majority; and a northern region controlled by the Kurds-would be worse for Israel and US interests than an Iraq under the rule of Saddam. Moreover, the poisonous dispute of Kirkuk will still be unresolved when the US troops pull out of Iraqi cities by next year. Oil rich Kirkuk risks becoming a cause for endless conflict between the competing groups. A civil war erupting in Iraq would also mean a high priority threat to Iraq's neighbors. In the interest of their own security, Iran and Turkey would have no other choice than to intervene in a so-called "liberated" Iraq. This, in turn, would have a domino effect in the entire Middle East.
Should the Shiites consolidate full authority over southern Iraq, this would mean that Iran and Israel would become neighbors by proxy. If this scenario should materialize, then any prospect of peace in the Middle East or security for Israel would vanish completely. All the Gulf States and Turkey share this concern. Even the thought of a nuclear Iran versus a nuclear Israel is too dangerous.
Potentially explosive issues, like a partitioned Iraq and increasing influence of Shia politics in the region would cause a dramatic change in Obama's image as a harbinger of change, attempting to melt the ice between Islam and the US. At that late stage of the game, sitting at the negotiation table with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would no longer have any constructive effect. The US would return home hurt from Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of their economy, international politics, national security, military dignity and a host of other strategic issues. Consequently, cross-border operations in Pakistan (as Obama hinted during his pre-election speeches) and a stand-off with Russia on the shores of the Baltic would worsen the United State's position in the international arena.
Moreover, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) is pessimistic about what lies ahead for the US. At a time when Western economies are shrinking because of the crisis; economies in the East are maintaining their growth. It seems for now that this will be the case in the near future. The influence of the US will decrease with the demise of its economy, political and military power, and will face a steep uphill climb with the approach of any new challenges to come.
We are entering a period in which many states will shift from the US dollar to the euro. This will drastically change the face of transatlantic relations. Naturally, this change will not happen suddenly; but there are indications that the dynamics of global affairs are shifting in important ways. Russia has become more attractive than the US for most European states. In time, Iran and India will join the ranks of Europe's strongest partners. Socialist China has already succeeded in reaching that level. The partnership between India, China, Russia and Iran has reached a strategic level, and Brazil will soon join this group. The focus of this strategic partnership will focus on energy, defense, and security. Africa, the Arctic and Antarctica will be the next areas of struggle because of global warming and depletion of natural resources. Conflicts will occur between the United States and new alliances because of the quest for dominance over new sources of natural resources. In addition to the challenge raised by natural resource scarcity is the increasing difficulty of feeding the world's poor, which is another strategic problem (and advantage for some).
With their vast territory, Russia and Ukraine will be two of the most advantageous rare states that benefit from climate change. Consequently, the first conflict between Russia and the US is expected to happen in the region that extends from Ukraine to the Baltic. Russia will have easy access to new oil reservoirs because of the melting of the glaciers, thus will become unrivaled in the world's oil production.
The new American administration will continue negotiations with Iran that were initiated by the Bush administration, but in a more transparent manner. This will cause weakening of the religious rule in Iran. Transformations in Iranian society would make Iran stronger than today. Without a doubt, the US needs Turkey to resolve its problems with Iran. Turkey's effectiveness in the Middle East increases with its potential, vibrant middle-class and geo-strategic location. Many Europeans shares Gramsci's motto of "Pessimism of mind, optimism of will" about Obama. Obama will be a centrist democrat leader, more or less like Bill Clinton. Domestically, he will share the power and globally, he will be the face of change and renewal for an America whose image has been badly hurt by the past administration. However, we should not forget that it will be a challenge for him to remain standing at the end of the dance-a challenge not only personally, but also a test for America. The system that paved the road for the first African-American President will surely not hesitate to shoot the horse that stumbles. After all, as the French saying goes, even "the best horse may stumble."