It’s really pretty simple. The American people understandably don’t
want to go to war with Syria — not to mention with Syria’s patron, Iran
— and especially not for the goal of putting the Muslim Brotherhood and
murderous Islamists into power there. Going to war is a serious matter,
to say the least. There’s no assurance how long it will take, how many
lives it will cost, and what turns it may take. And the Middle East has
just had several examples of these wars.
Iraq and Afghanistan cost a lot of money and lives as they extended
for a much longer time than had been expected. In addition, they
derailed the Bush administration’s electoral fortunes and domestic
programs. With the main emphasis of the Obama administration being a
fundamental transformation of America, such distractions are not
desired.
There is one other important consideration: the Obama
administration does not accept the traditional diplomatic and great
power strategies. It believes that it can reconcile with Islamist
states, it does not comprehend deterrents, it does not keep faith with
allies, and it does not believe in credibility, the belief that only
power exerted can convince a foe of seriousness.
Of course, that wouldn’t rule out a one-time targeted attack. But
even if that were to be done, is America going to fight a full-scale war
on the ground with allies–including al-Qaeda –which will never be
satisfied and will always be eager to stab them in the back?
The administration has trapped itself with two problems: the rebels
who are being supported in Syria are extreme radicals who may set off
bloodbaths and regional instability if they win; and a challenge has
been given to the very reckless forces of Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.
When the United States threatens these three players, the response is
always: “Make my day!”
So this is the situation, and the Obama administration is bluffing.
It does not want to exert force and probably won’t. Iran and Syria
would be quite willing to fight a war, but the United States–people and
government–do not have the will to do so.
What is the best option for the Obama administration? To try to
negotiate — as unlikely as it is — a deal in which some kind of interim
or coalition arrangement would be arranged with Russia and Iran to make a
transition from the current regime. Mainly, this means a stalling
tactic. This could work, though, if the regime does not actually win the
war. Aid to rebels and some gimmicks perhaps, but no decisive action.
There is, however, still a problem — the two Syrian sides want to wipe each other out.
Why should the Russians and Iranians make a deal if they have a
winning hand? No diplomatic arrangement is possible. In fact, the
diplomatic option is fictional. To put it flatly, there is no
alternative.
It is not inconceivable that the White House would consider easing
sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program to have a chance in Syria. What
is likely then is stalling, with the probability that the civil war
will settle into stagnation for several years and thus a de facto
partition of Syria.
The United States simply can’t win given what it is willing to do.
And in a great power standoff, that’s a very dangerous
situation. Remember, though: Iran cannot be said to have won as long as
the civil war is continuing. The administration can simply depend on
denial, which should be sufficient for domestic purposes.
Finally, ask yourself one question: will the United States under
Obama dare a confrontation with Iran, Syria, and Russia to keep up
American credibility, deterrence, and the confidence of allies who it is
already opposing on Egypt? Of course not.
This is a president who could barely decide to kill Osama bin Laden.
No comments:
Post a Comment