David Sanger makes a go at discerning one, with the caveat that it's still way too early to determine any. One interesting section of Sanger's piece had to do with nuclear disarmament:
It was when Mr. Obama turned to his vision of a nuclear-weapons-free future, during a speech in Prague, that strategic vision began to trump symbolism.
It is a strategy based on a bet: That if the world’s first nuclear-armed state demonstrated a willingness to sharply reduce its atomic arsenal, ban nuclear testing and cut off the worldwide production of more bomb-grade material, its reluctant allies and partners around the world would be far more likely to rewrite nuclear treaties and enforce sanctions against North Korea and Iran.
Part of me wonders whether the Obama administration really is as naive as its conservative critics charge, or whether something else is at work. Ultimately, Obama, like his predecessor, is not going to launch wars against either country to disarm them (unless they do something incredibly rash, which can't be ruled out). But he has to do something. So why not this? It's not as if these efforts are in place of economic sanctions.
Nor is there any material harm done by it. The U.S. will retain enough nuclear capability to kill large numbers of people no matter what arms control agreements or international proliferation regimes we sign onto.