US President Barack Obama delivered a defiant State of the Union address on Tuesday, focusing mainly on domestic policy and laying out his strategy to improve the standard of living of America’s middle classes.

His domestic agenda included making community college free and childcare affordable, increasing the federal minimum wage, introducing seven days of annual paid sick leave and imposing new taxes on the very wealthy.

Most of these proposals would seem to be reasonable and common sense ideas to us in Europe, but they are unlikely to be approved by a somewhat hostile Republican-led Congress. However, it looks like Obama was setting the agenda for the 2016 presidential election and preparing a platform for his Democratic successor.

Obama was also clearly trying to shape his legacy by declaring – rightly so – that the US economy had turned a page and had created more jobs since the Great Recession than all the other wealthy countries put together. He also referred to energy in his speech, saying the US is “as free from the grip of foreign oil as we’ve been in almost 30 years”. Obama has presided over a boom in US oil and gas production which has played an important role in driving down the price of crude oil – weakening oil-dependent economies such as Russia and Iran.

The President did speak about a number of foreign policy areas, but chose to omit others. Obama referred to the 15,000 US soldiers left in Iraq and Afghanistan, compared to 180,000 when he first took office. He added: “In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group.”

Obama did not mention Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, nor did he refer to America’s apparent support for a pair of diplomatic initiatives – one from the UN and the other from Russia – that puts aside the US-backed Geneva framework that called for a wholesale transfer of power in Syria to a “transitional governing body.” In other words, Washington has come round to the fact that the removal of Assad is neither imminent nor is it desirable, as this would only lead to further instability and gains by the jihadists.

The UN proposal is to freeze the fighting on the ground, starting in the strategic city of Aleppo. Russia’s initiative is to set up talks between the different sides in Moscow later this month aimed at reaching a power-sharing deal between Assad’s government and some Opposition figures. Both initiatives deserve to be supported, considering the terrible situation Syria is in.

On Russia, Obama said: “We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small –  by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our Nato allies. Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.”

While the President deserves credit for the way he handled Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, it would have been useful had he come up with some new proposals to entice Moscow to think again about its misguided behaviour, which have caused relations between Russia and the West to plummet to a new low. Meanwhile, last week saw some of the worst fighting between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian rebels since last summer.

The President spoke briefly about Washington’s move towards the establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba – one of the boldest foreign policy moves of the Obama presidency.

He said: “In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for 50 years, it’s time to try something new. Our shift in Cuba policy has the potential to end a legacy of mistrust in our hemisphere; removes a phony excuse for restrictions in Cuba; stands up for democratic values; and extends the hand of friendship to the Cuban people. And this year, Congress should begin the work of ending the embargo.”

The normalisation of relations between the US and Cuba, and the removal of America’s trade embargo (if the Republicans in Congress agree to this) is without doubt a positive development and will be part of Obama’s legacy. Last week, in fact, the US and Cuba held their highest-level talks in decades in Havana.

The President did speak about a number of foreign policy areas, but chose to omit others

On Iran’s nuclear programme, Obama said that “between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran, secures America and our allies,  including Israel, while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict”.

There is no doubt that Iran is in a weak position, both because of international sanctions and the collapse in oil prices, and it should therefore be in its interest to arrive at a nuclear deal. Such an agreement, if adhered to, could change the dynamics of the Middle East and open up a new chapter in relations between Washington and Teheran.

While Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will be under pressure from hardliners in the country’s establishment not to agree to a deal, Obama faces opposition to a deal from the Republicans in Congress who, influenced by Israel, want to impose new sanctions on Iran. Obama, however, made it clear (rightly so) that he will have no choice but to veto any new sanctions.

“New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails –  alien­ating America from its allies and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear programme again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions Bill that threatens to undo this progress,” the President said.

Soon after Obama’s speech, however, House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netan­yahu to address Congress about the threat posed by Iran. In an unprecedented snub to the President and in breach of normal diplomatic protocol, Boehner didn’t consult with the White House before inviting Netanyahu to speak on February 11.

In his speech, Obama omitted to mention a number of important foreign policy challenges for the US, most notably Libya, Yemen and the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

Libya is on the verge of becoming a failed State, which could have terrible consequences for Europe and the Mediterranean. Unfortunately both the EU and the US seem content to leave the UN to try to resolve the Libyan situation; regrettably the UN-sponsored peace talks in Geneva seem to be going nowhere. It would have been encouraging had Obama spoken of a US initiative to stabilise Libya.

The situation in Yemen presents a huge challenge for Obama. Last Tuesday, Shi’ite Houthi rebels took control of the country’s presidential palace, and on Thursday, President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, a key US ally in the fight against al-Qaeda, offered his resignation, as did Prime Minister Khaled Bahah and the entire Cabinet.

The US has provided more than $1.4 billion in economic and military aid to Yemen since 2009 to help the country fight al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, by far the most dangerous of all al-Qaeda affiliates – which claimed responsibility for the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris.

Tuesday’s events follow months of clashes between Hadi’s government and the Houthis, who want more of a say in how the country is run. Last September the two sides signed a ceasefire agreement that called for a government of national unity that included the Houthis. However, strains resurfaced recently as Hadi planned to introduce a new Constitution without getting the approval of the Shi’ites, who make up 30 per cent of Yemen’s population.

While the Shi’ite Houthis are certainly no friends of al-Qaeda, an increasingly unstable and chaotic Yemen can only benefit the jihadists. The US will need to convince both President Hadi and the Shi’ite rebels to work out a compromise and stick to their original power-sharing agreement.

Obama said nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian question, which unfortunately has not made any progress since he first entered the White House. Although nothing will happen until after March’s elections in Israel, the failure by Obama to exert enough pressure on Israel to adopt a flexible approach towards the Palestinians (he has probably tried the hardest of all the past presidents) is the most disappointing foreign policy aspect of his presidency.

It would also have been useful had Obama said something about how the US views developments in Egypt, (a delicate situation), how certain Muslim countries need to take a stronger stand against jihadism, and how Tunisia has turned into a shining example of how liberals and Islamists can work together and compromise for the common good.