Yesterday’s admission by the White House and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Syria appears to have used chemical weapons against its own people took the debate about American policy toward the embattled Assad dictatorship to a new level. There are still no good choices available to the United States since the rebels fighting the regime are, at best, a mixed bag, and if successful may bring Islamists to power in Damascus. But, as I noted previously, President Obama’s preference for “leading from behind” and simply sitting back and hoping for the best won’t work. Allowing an Iranian ally to use Sarin gas to commit mass murder without lifting a finger to stop it is both morally wrong as well as bad geostrategic policy. So too is a policy that would not give the U.S. the leverage to help those Syrian rebels who are not Islamists prevail over those who are extremists.
But there is another angle to the decision that the administration will have to make on Syria that has wider implications for the region. With even ardent Obama supporters like Jeffrey Goldberg reminding the president he has made it crystal clear that chemical weapons use would be a red line that would trigger a strong U.S. response, what follows will not only tell us whether that promise would be kept. It will also illustrate just how seriously to take other pledges the administration has made, specifically its vow never to allow Iran to go nuclear. With the White House desperately trying to buy time before making a decision on Syria, it’s fair to ask why anyone should regard American rhetoric on Iran as anything more than an elaborate bluff if Obama won’t keep his word about Assad’s behavior.
Judging by the reaction in Washington to the news about the proof of the Assad regime using chemical weapons, many in the administration may now regret the president’s willingness to make promises about Syria. It is likely that he and his foreign policy team naively believed that Assad would fall long before they were called to account for their loose talk about being willing to act if the dictator went too far in trying to preserve his regime. Moreover, having largely been propelled into office by American war weariness, it will be difficult for a president who prefers to lead from behind to convince his supporters to back American involvement in Syria.
But if after his trademark slow decision-making process unfolds, the president decides that the U.S. will still not do anything to prevent the future use of chemical weapons or to limit Assad’s ability to use them, a crucial red line will have been crossed.
As I have written many times, its more than clear that the ayatollahs neither respect nor believe President Obama’s many warnings about their nuclear ambitions. The president’s record of dithering, feckless engagement policies, slowness to enact and then enforce economic sanctions and his commitment to a diplomatic process that has repeatedly failed have given Tehran good reason to doubt that he means business about the issue or that he regards force as an option that is truly still on the table.
Yet the president’s continued use of strong words about Iran leaves open the possibility that they are wrong. But if he cannot muster the will to do something about Syria even after the death of 70,000 people at Assad’s hands and the use of chemical weapons, then why should anyone think Obama will ever act against Iran?
That places the Syrian decision in a context in which the possible costs of inaction are far greater than the justified worries about those of intervention. There may be no good options in Syria, but the blowback from a realization that the U.S. won’t stop mass killings in this manner may be far more costly. The price may not be paid by Americans, at least not immediately, but the toll in blood and diplomatic and security complications will be great. If American “red lines” mean nothing, then Obama’s blind faith in diplomacy will be exposed as a disastrous sham.
Obama's "peace in our time" allows lunatics to grow stronger, and makes a coming war that much more difficult.
Americans are waking up to what we've done to ourselves in our election of Mr. Obama, not once but twice. Mr. Obama was never serious about red-lines whether they apply to Iran, Syria, or even sequestration. (Remember his comment in the election: "That [sequestration] won't happen." Yea, right. That did happen and we are all living with it. n nSyria can do as it wants without fear of U.S. reprisal. For perspective, look at Libya. A mass riot and murder of our diplomats and it's "who cares" according to Mrs. Clinton. If we do not hold that nation accountable for the murder of diplomats, then why would Mr. Assad believe that he would be held accountable for the murder of his own citizens? America talks tough (recall: "Don't call my bluff", "I've got Israel's back" both from Mr. Obama), we even have the ability to be tough, but we have not the will to act tough. n nAs for Iran, its leaders watch the news and see a weak world, I am sorry to say. Europe is in such a financial crises that they can do nothing but watch events unfold with complete impotence. That's a shame but it's reality. Russia is happy with the chaos as it creates possibilities for them to extend their influence. China has now scraped its no first use nuclear policy and continues to flex its muscles throughout Asia and likely beyond. China is more inclined to help Iran than to stop it. n nAmerica is the last hope to stop Iran but we have not the will nor stomach to do so. You can bet that White House advisers are already discussing containment, and have been for years from what we see in terms of our non-action. n nMr. Obama would rather not deal with any of these matters, and who can blame him. But that's the job of the president. Unfortunately for us, our county, and the world at large, America's highest leader is more interested in the show and pomp of the office than in doing the duties and deeds of the nation. Iran sees this weakness and respects it. The Iranians are smart and without fear. That's too bad but that's how it is.
Obama can get away with doing nothing because no one in the MSM will ever ask him about it. It will be as if there never was a red line, never was an Obama promise. Obama pays no attention to anything he says or does and doesn't seem to care either how many people are killed because of what he says or does (or maybe he doesn't even care if the United States is erased from the universe). What evidence is there that he has any goals or plans or ideas about anything? What does he do besides get up, maybe shoot some hoops, golf 18 holes, eat an expensive meal, maybe watch some TV (or Clint Eastwood movies), and go to bed? Day after day.
Sadly, your analysis is accurate. But it is now too late. We got the president that most voters wanted and re-elected, and now we have to wait until 2016 to change direction. Hopefully, the GOP will put forward a truly qualified, charismatic, and strong leader who can gain election. It will be the next president's difficult task to unravel the knots and undo the damage caused by eight years of Obama. I only hope that our voters are not stupid enough in 2016 to elect another liberal Democrat (think Hilary Clinton or Mario Cuomo.).
the Fourth Estate has mutated into a Fifth Column and actively works against the best interests of this republic in order to cover for their lord and master
regarding: n nWhat does he do besides get up, maybe shoot some hoops, golf 18 holes, eat an expensive meal, maybe watch some TV (or Clint Eastwood movies), and go to bed? Day after day. n nObama is- n nthat alone is enough for his acolytes n nbeing seen as politically correct trumps evething else
It should be obvious that Obama's 10 Billion dollar arms deal to Israel and surrounding Arab states is his George Kenan Moment. Obama decided years ago that Iran will not be confronted but contained. He has decided that Iran is a geopolitical peer of the US (and anyone else) in that part of the world. Therefore he needs to create buffer states between Iran and the west just as the US did in Europe and SE Asia in the Cold War. The realists and neo realists who counsel him have convinced Obama that the next big war, the next big geopolitical struggle will be fought between Iran and the US on Israeli and Sunni Arab ground.
CBS News (online) reports this today: "The White House said the evidence of Syrian chemical weapons attacks is still too thin and President Obama's red line has not been crossed, and that means military intervention by the United States in the Syrian civil war is not imminent … " And Bridget Johnson at PJMedia.com reported yesterday that the Administration is asking the UN to determine whether poison gas has been used in Syria. Because the Administration is saying no red-line has been crossed and because the UN will never be able to ascertain whether poison gas has been used, the bottom line is that Obama will do nothing. Assad now has a free hand to do as he pleases; Iran now knows that no options are on the table; and Israel knows it's going to have to fend for itself. This is a debacle for the Administration and the country. The next president is going to have a mess that he/she will need to clean up.
"evidence still too thin"? That should never stop a president from taking military action.
Yeah, that's what FDR and Churchill said about the death camps, too.
You are of particular density here Hillel. You are taking rhetoric that is the flimsiest of excuses and that goes against the face of increasing evidence at face value–and are then acting as if this rhetoric is a self-evident and actual thing with your own rhetoric. (And I can only assume you mean to impugn Bush, as if Bush's actual verification measures prior to Iraq were lesser to Obama's current "verification" "measures.")
exactly! but that's his standard operating procedure–assuming this or that administration polemical dodge ball feint is an empirical ontological fact and then deploying that sarcastically to deride somebody's recitation of available evidence as rhetorical overkill. n nthis is what it is over and over and over and over for years now
your belligerence always rests on not-so-funny ironic inversion and blind misreading of any topic under discussion. The CIA has blood test results with sarin. The issue isn't intervention or not–the issue is that the President followed up an unequivocal declaration and even release of his intelligence agencies concurrance in the view that Assad has used nerve gas with an absurd backtracking and a punt to the UN–and the UN was never even on the horizon of early declarations-it is just an excuse. Next up, The Girl Scouts of America and the Mystic Knights of the Sea need to launch an investigation before he will be convinced.
The administration is now saying they have doubts about the chain of custody of those blood samples; someone may have tampered with them to add Sarin, apparently.
I am sure Obama is going to focus like a laser on jobs, because he has said so many times. n nOops. All red lines have now been sequestered in Texas… n n[cynicism made me write this]
More crazy talk from Tobin. Granted, Obama should have kept his mouth shut about "Assad must go" and "red lines." However, the question is what vital interest of the United States is at stake in Syria, and further, because a US intervention quite likely would make things there worse rather than better, what possible case for it can be made? Proving that we will follow up on irresponsible statements hardly seems wise. Pointing to the bloodshed and the incidental use of gas hardly justifies intervention. If the bloodiness of a conflict mandates our intervention, we'd have ground forces in the Eastern Congo. n nGoofy and dangerous. n
wrong wrong wrong. you don't get it. it is no longer a only a question of defending Obama, worrying about Israel vis a vis American interests, or even intervening or not intervening in Syria. It is a question of what Obama's pledges mean when he doesn't keep his mouth shut for those who need to evaluate whether they mean anything. They don't. This ends up being about Israeli, not American, decisions about Iran. Or Japanese and S. Korean decisions about nuclear weapon acquisistion etc. The guy is President–he wasn't just offering his opinion at the barber shop or the back seat of a taxi. He was pretending to be enunciating the policy of the United States of America. That policy declaration, now drowned in caveats and wool gathering about the UN etc etc etc, plus 1.50 will get you on a bus.
"The guy is President–he wasn't just offering his opinion at the barber shop or the back seat of a taxi." But besht, his supporters can't really acknowledge that. They still think he is speaking truth to power! It is cruel of you to try and disabuse them of that fantasy.
For the those who hold cruel power in the world our President might as well be Honey Boo Boo. Bizarre.
At least you acknowledge his comments were irresponsible. He made them for people like you, though. Made stupid comments to get him through the election – make it easier for fools to justify voting for him…again. n
Thanks to Obama's (probably phony) tough talk, the vital interest at stake is now the credibility of the United States.Obama's empty threats are not only irresponsible but murderous. Having once used chemical weapons despite US threats that have now been shown to be phony, the Assad regime will not hesitae long before using them again. Would US intervention really be worse than that?
muslims slaughtering muslims without and end in sight? nsounds good to me
Obamas promises mean nothing and no, you can't trust him on Iran. next question….
Exactly. (You beat me to it, by about 3 hours.)
a takeaway worth borrowing…. n nand with Obama forever apt….
Or, he can simply say that the US will never take any action at all no matter what.
In reality we can conclude two points.ONE the last thing we need is to get into another endless war.TWO Obummer needs to stop lecturing people.He looks like a fool.
There really is no need to mistrust by analogy. To wit: …With the White House desperately trying to buy time before making a decision on Syria, it’s fair to ask why anyone should regard American rhetoric on Iran as anything more than an elaborate bluff if Obama won’t keep his word about Assad’s behavior…. n nNo asking needed. Obama was never, I say never, going to act to try prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. Anybody with an ounce of sense knew that from the get go. And the Israelis have always known it too. n nContainment will be the name of that game, not prevention.