What effect (if any) would a Sanders Presidency have on American foreign policy?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Would Sanders be able to dramatically change the objectives of American foreign policy (for better or worse), or would he basically be doing the same thing that Obama is currently?

Furthermore, would Sanders be willing to play realpolitik in foreign affairs? 

[NeverAgain]

Sanders is definitely no pacifist. I doubt his foreign policy would differ much from Obama's, he supports Israel and military interventions as much as other Democrats do.

From what I have seen of him, I am pretty sure he'd be much less "hawkish" than Obama. My hope is more attached to that statement. Then again, Obama said the first thing he'd do is close Gitmo. Damn Politicians.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders is definitely no pacifist. I doubt his foreign policy would differ much from Obama's, he supports Israel and military interventions as much as other Democrats do.

From what I have seen of him, I am pretty sure he'd be much less "hawkish" than Obama. My hope is more attached to that statement. Then again, Obama said the first thing he'd do is close Gitmo. Damn Politicians.

Sanders isn't perfect. He's too pro-Israel. He did vote for the Afghanistan War. But you can trust him more than most politicians, and certainly a lot more than Obama.

[AdamHyde]

I'm a Brit, so I'm looking at this from the outside. So far as I see, there are two sides to this.

Firstly, there's image. He doesn't have the charisma of his predecessors and, as we all know, international relations isn't always about brains. Complex negotiations are smoothed by how well liked your leader is abroad, and when dealing with some more shady leaders (Putin) is almost a condition to negotiations. On top of that, charismatic leaders come off as trustworthy. In Obama's case, so trustworthy that both Cuba and Iran were willing to negotiate outcomes that (on balance) provide the US with significantly better outcomes.

Secondly,there's the ideology. I'll tell you now that European politicians can be incredibly stubborn, especially on the left. The same can be said for most of the world, in all honesty. They respect leaders that share at least some of their values, and understand world problems. After all, the US President will always have to work on the delivery of free healthcare and increased welfare spending in less developed or conflict-ravaged nations on the international stage; it never seems very sincere when (no matter what the pros or cons) the President doesn't want to deliver similar changes in the US.

So Sanders would be disadvantaged insofar as he's forgettable and lacks charisma, but his ideological commitment would make the US a bit more popular in a few of the world's least US-friendly states. Personally, I think he'll be worse than Obama (who's probably more respected abroad than you realise), but perhaps better than Bush (who was seriously unpopular abroad)

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

He would definitely be more pro-Israel than Obama would be, in some instances I would say Sanders is to the right of the party as a whole on some foreign policy concerns most notably Israel.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He would definitely be more pro-Israel than Obama would be, in some instances I would say Sanders is to the right of the party as a whole on some foreign policy concerns most notably Israel.

LOL, what?

[Thunderbird is the word]

Sanders views on Israel are pretty fairly mainstream. I don't see him as being in the neocon camp.