The Western optimism about the imminent fall of the Assad regime in Syria voiced so frequently throughout much of the last year is starting to quiet down. President Obama was willing to express confidence that the Arab Spring would claim another triumph in Damascus just a few months ago. But the collapse of the United Nations-sponsored plan for an end to the violence in Syria has once again made it clear not only that the world body’s peace efforts are farcical, but that the administration’s Middle East policies are a hopeless muddle.
The main villain in this drama remains Bashar al-Assad, whose forces continue to butcher the Syrian people. But at this point it must be understood that a Western refusal to openly challenge that dictator and his backers in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran has created a foreign policy debacle with consequences that extend beyond the borders of that tortured country. The United States decided that unlike the case in Libya where intervention to topple the Qaddafi government was deemed easy and relatively cost-free, a repeat effort in Syria was a perilous undertaking beyond the capacity of the West to contemplate. It is certainly true that a more aggressive policy toward Assad would have created risks and would not have been without a high cost. But as President Obama may be learning (in those spare moments when not immersed in his re-election campaign aimed at demonizing his domestic opponents), allowing Russia, China and Iran to help thwart world opinion on this issue will undermine U.S. interests and credibility.
The president fatally underestimated both Assad’s staying power and his willingness to shed blood to hold onto power. But worse than that, he failed to understand that Western passivity created a perfect opening for Iran, ably backed by Russia and China to create a test case by which they could prove that it was still possible to thwart the will of the United States as well as international opinion.
While President Obama’s major Middle East policy speech last May is best remembered for its attempt to ambush Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on the issue of the 1967 borders, the bulk of the address was a manifesto of America’s intentions to help the Arab Spring create a new sphere of democracy and prosperity. The speech was remarkable for an approach that could rightly be labeled neoconservative in its devotion to the idea that America could help foster democracy in a region where it was (other than in Israel) largely unknown. But the initiative was overshadowed by Obama’s unsuccessful dustup with Israel and ignored by the Arabs. Other than the president’s brief foray in “leading from behind” in Libya, the United States has been a passive observer in the region.
The only aspect of U.S. policy in the region that could be dignified with the term strategy was the president’s decision to warm up relations with Turkey at the very time the Islamist government of that nation was tilting against Israel and making noises about a revival of Ottoman influence. Though Turkey is a questionable ally, it has become something of a surrogate for Western interests in Syria as it challenged Assad. But even there, Obama has made a mess of things, as it is now clear Turkey is no match for Iran’s allies in terms of its ability to influence events.
The unraveling of the UN peace plan promoted by former Secretary General Kofi Annan (who can now add the triumph of Syrian tyranny to his long list of other diplomatic failures) doesn’t just mean it is more than likely Assad will survive this crisis. The other consequences represent a catastrophe for American interests. Iran looks to be able to hold onto a crucial ally in Assad who will be more dependent on it than ever. And Russia and China have demonstrated that the notion of a world in which America is the only superpower has been supplanted by one in which America’s former Cold War adversaries have become forces to be reckoned with. All this also dramatically reduces Obama’s chances of a successful campaign to pressure Iran into giving up its nuclear ambitions.
Though the president feared the cost of intervention in Syria, it is rapidly becoming apparent that the United States will be paying dearly for his temerity in the years to come.
It is doubtful that Obama has ever been serious, from day one about Iran. And other events connected to Iranian regional dominance flow downward from that. Since Iran is to be neither engaged nor contained it stands to reason that Iran's satellites are to be treated likewise. In this Obama finds an unconnected yet convenient parallel in the UN's 'efforts' which if we are to compare UNIFILs pointless mission in next door Lebanon, is more or less the same. What did the UN think it was going to accomplish? That for no reason and no gain Assad would stop killing people? What's the downside if he ignores the UN? None at all. So while Obama genuflects to Iran and the UN decides which Jews to blame for all of this it's obvious that nothing is going to change. But if some psychotic gang of 9th century Islamic mental cases decided to steal enough weapons to challenge Assad, dear me. Obama would be jumping up and down for another chance to lead from behind.
Costly to the United States or costly to Obama? You mistakenly assume that he views US interests as the same as his own. He seems to be doing quite well politically by harming the United States at home and abroad. Why do you assume he wants what is best for the US?
I think Obama should check with 'Vladimir'. Maybe there is something he can do for Barak under the reset? n n nThe amazing thing is that when Obama took office, there was a single superpower. Us. n nNo longer. Leading from behind, abdicating moral authority and guidance to the UN, trying to reset with Russia, funding the Chinese military buildup with American dollars, has brought us to the point where the world now has three middling powers, two of whom are comfortable enough to routinely kick America in the teeth. . n nThis is a catastrophic deterioration. n nI think the rapid decline of American influence during the Obama years will be studied in foreign policy classes for years . . . n n
The cost of intervention would be high, and the results, even if we were victorious, uncertain. Are Wahabis or Salafis preferable to Alewis? n nThe only thing we did wrong was to announce that Bashar had to go, when we weren't prepared to make the announcement stick. Democracy in a country with preferential cousin marriage and the resulting strong extended families, and major ethnic divisions, is a non-starter in any case. The strong man in power is likely no worse than the strong man who would succeed him, after much bloodshed.
Heh. You have finally said something logical and not warped by Jew hatred.
Pr. Obama is not really interested in the downfall of Assad, just like he will not force Iran to back down and it will be Israel who will have to take action. He loves to be in second or third or last when crucial foreign policy decisions need to be taken. His sensitivity for Islam is a major risk for the Western world. nPr. O. wants to tame the US superpower.
It's not that hard to figure out the right thing to do in these matters. Ask Jimmy Carter what he would do if he were POTUS at this time, then do exactly the opposite. Unlike a stopped watch, Carter is unlikely to ever be right, since bias always seems to direct him toward the wrong answer.
Islamist enemies of Assad are already expelling Christians from the very cities targeted by Alawite Baathists. And America has a dog in this fight why? n n nUnder Cover of Revolution nBy Andrew Stuttaford nApril 14, 2012 6:45 P.M. Comments3 nThis article in the London Spectator on the plight of the Arab world’s embattled Christian minorities is worth reading in full, but this particular detail (and, no, that’s not really the word) was, to say the least, worth noting: n n[A] war-within-a-war is raging in Syria. While Homs has been besieged by the army of Bashar al-Assad over the past two months, Islamist fanatics from the ranks of the rebels found time to root out the city’s 50,000 Christians and force them to flee. The Christians of Homs, having abandoned their homes and their belongings, are now sheltering in mountain villages about 30 miles from the city. They are unlikely to return. n nThe Catholic News Agency reports that Syria’s Christian community has suffered terrorist attacks in other cities, too. Last month, a car bomb exploded in the Christian quarter of Aleppo, close to the Franciscan-run Church of St Bonaventure. ‘The people we are helping are very afraid,’ said Bishop Antoine Audo of Aleppo, who is overseeing a Catholic aid programme. ‘The Christians don’t know what their future will hold.’ n nSadly, I suspect that they do. All too well.