Congressional Republicans resoundingly won the midterm election battle. Now the GOP needs to pivot from campaigning to governing, and President Obama will need to work with the new majority despite the divide, and even enmity, that separates them.

Foreign policy offers both sides a chance to cooperate, if not coalesce, on shared objectives.

For his part, Obama should better articulate his foreign policy strategy. Adversaries and allies alike perceive America as close to rudderless, which can invite aggression and even military miscalculation that could necessitate U.S. force. And Congress should consider that hobbling Obama further only exacerbates the foreign policy fecklessness that the GOP campaigned against. Instead, it's time to bilaterally advance U.S. interests.

Obama has signaled that he will ask Congress for authorization to use force in the fight against ISIL (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). This is long overdue, and should spur a spirited dialogue about what Obama's stated goal of "degrading and ultimately destroying" ISIL really means.

Those who think the fight should be left to local forces will have their say. Those who concur with the growing consensus that the U.S. strategy to rely on "moderate" forces in Syria is unworkable should make their case, too, and most important, weigh in on whether to deploy combat troops. Doing so is the most profound decision a president makes, and Congress should shoulder some of the decision.

Of course, an effective foreign policy must rely on more than force. The most effective tool, diplomacy, can be bolstered by free trade agreements. Two major pacts are pending: The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation free trade agreement among the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The other proposed deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, would link the United States and the European Union.

As the world's most innovative and productive society, the United States stands to benefit from free trade agreements, despite the disruption they can cause.

Trade agreements are "hugely important" to diplomacy, Moises Naim, a fellow in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told an editorial writer this week. "First and foremost, they are very good for the people of the United States. They are also good for the world. They are difficult and involve complex negotiations and bring out the worst in special interests," Naim said. "But they deserve to be given a fair, intense, hopefully successful shot."

A successful shot won't happen unless Congress allows trade-promotion authority, commonly called "fast track," which previous presidents of both parties used to sign trade pacts. Republicans historically have supported free trade, and they should use their majority to grant fast track.

America's newfound energy abundance also can be an effective diplomatic tool, and Obama should strongly consider the benefits of accelerating energy exports to Europe to counter Russian aggression.

And it's time to finally decide on the Keystone pipeline, which is not just an energy and environmental issue, but a diplomatic one, too, since it involves Canada. The alternative — rail — is a clear safety risk.

Obama and Congress must also focus on Iran. A Nov. 24 deadline looms for a comprehensive deal on Iran's potential nuclear weapons program. Concessions will be necessary. Any deal will not be ideal, but congressional critics should carefully consider the alternative. Stricter sanctions might unravel the global coalition that brought Iran to the table in the first place.

If talks are scrapped and Iran makes a dash to deploy, there will be considerable pressure to take military action. Congress showed it was unwilling to approve even limited military action against Syria after it crossed the "red line" of chemical weapons, and it is reticent on fighting ISIL. Is it really ready for what could be a much more major Mideast war?

Politics stopping at the water's edge may be an anachronism of a more cohesive era. For Congress and Obama, however, presenting a more united front on critical foreign policy issues should be a bipartisan goal.