In less than a month President Obama will head to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize — awarded to him not for what he has done, but for what the judges hope he will achieve during his first term.

The US leader rarely fails to inspire when he speaks, but he will need all his rhetorical powers when he mounts the podium for this acceptance address.

Mr Obama has travelled more widely than any American president in his first year in office. He has delivered stirring speeches to the Arab and Muslim worlds, extended the hand of friendship to old rivals like Iran, tried to press the “reset button” with Russia and charmed Europeans — who were relieved to be rid of George Bush.

After nearly ten months in office, however, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr Obama’s foreign policy is in real trouble.

Whether it is Afghanistan, the Middle East, climate change or Iran, the Administration looks weak, divided and confused.

Much has been made of the current debate in the White House over the President’s failure to decide the next stage of his Afghan strategy. While some applauded his cautious, thoughtful approach, in reality the long debate has been damaging to America’s credibility.

Amid accusations of “dithering”, the morale of US troops on the front line is weakening. Support from Nato allies is also wavering. The Taleban are emboldened and less likely to negotiate if they believe victory is a matter of time. However many reinforcements Mr Obama sends, the damage has already been done.

His foreign failings do not stop there. Earlier this year there was hope that he would deliver progress in the Middle East, where talks between Palestinians and Israelis are frozen. After taking a tough line on Israel initially, and demanding an end to the construction of Jewish settlements, the Administration backed away suddenly this month.

This time the failure was blamed on Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who praised Israel for “unprecedented” concessions, even though it intends to continue settlement construction. The result has been to destroy the credibility of President Abbas, the moderate Western-backed Palestinian leader, who has declared that he will stand down before elections next year.

Hamas, the militant group that runs the Gaza Strip, will benefit hugely from the collapse of support for Mr Abbas. Iran is also likely to benefit from the fall-out. The most pressing issue is its suspected pursuit of the technology to build a nuclear bomb. Mr Obama first gave Iran a deadline of September to accept restrictions on its programme, particularly uranium enrichment. The deadline has now slipped to the end of the year, with no clearer idea of what will happen if the Iranians do not comply.

It is not fair to blame Mr Obama for the likely failure of an agreement to limit carbon emissions at next month’s climate conference in Copenhagen. Nevertheless America, as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has a responsibility to take a lead. At best, Copenhagen now looks like a “staging post” to a later deal.

Mr Obama’s many defenders will argue that he was dealt a difficult hand when sworn in last January. He had an economic crisis at home, a bitter fight to get his healthcare reforms through Congress, and two inherited wars. That may be true, but he knew that when he ran. All the foreign policy problems were clearly identified before he set foot in the White House.

Times Recommends

• Oprah Winfrey says goodbye to her talk show
• Focus on the big issues, not the bananas
• Václav Havel — symbol of national liberation