Benjamin Weinthal
In response to President Obama’s Syria speech about a deal with Russia confiscating the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government announced an
offer of S-300 air-defense missile systems to Syria’s main military
supporter, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Moreover, Putin seeks to
assist Iran in building a second Bushehr nuclear reactor.
Putin’s
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin and Iran’s new President Hassan
Rouhani are slated to discuss on Friday “working together in the
nuclear-energy sphere” and “questions of military technical
cooperation.”
Put simply, Putin plans to continue to arm Iran’s
regime and help build its illicit nuclear program while Iran continues
to send weapons and troops to Syria.
All of this helps to explain the title of Eli Lake’s article today over at the Daily Beast: “Is Putin, a Big Assad Supplier, Seriously Going to Disarm Him?”
The
use of military strikes to change the behavior of Assad (and Iran)
might very well fizzle out in protracted negotiations. Even if an
agreement is reached, it is worth paraphrasing Charles de Gaulle on the
significance of enforcing a ban of Assad’s use of chemical warfare:
Treaties are like flowers — they are ephemeral.
The
Russia-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance obtained an enormous boost over the
last two weeks by demonstrating its ability to out-strategize the Obama
administration. Obama dealt with Iran as a kind of footnote in his speech (it was cited once), stating that failure to stand up to Syria will “embolden Assad’s ally, Iran.”
However,
Obama’s bizarre idea of flexing U.S. power means postponing a vote on
military strikes targeting Syria’s regime and out-sourcing the U.S
anti-chemical-weapons policy to the Russians. Doesn’t Obama’s policy
then actually contribute to emboldening Iran?
U.S allies in the Middle East — Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia —
remain justifiably puzzled and disappointed by Obama’s erratic foreign
policy. In a region where the departure point for strength emanates — it
can be argued — from the famous The Good, the Bad and the Ugly line,
“When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk,” there is growing
alienation among U.S allies over Obama’s failure to understand the need
for raw power.
(On a side note, Obama’s decision to seek
congressional authorization to strike Syria was correct, but should have
been sought last year when Assad first used chemical weapons.)
Obama
missed an opportunity with his televised address to explain to the
American public that Iran’s regime is Syria’s regime and Syria’s regime
is Iran’s regime. Iran will interpret Obama’s soggy resistance to Syria
as a green-light to complete its work on a nuclear-weapons device.
The
other gaping hole in Obama’s speech was the lack of strong rhetoric
about the pressing need for regime change in Syria. It is worth reading
Tuft’s professor William C. Martel’s essay over at The National Interest on why regime change has to stay “on the table.”
Obama’s
anti-Assad policy has not been transformed into action. He rejects a
no-fly zone; he has hardly delivered on his promise to provide arms to
moderate rebels; he has shown no appetite over the last two years for
building the organizational and political infrastructure of
a pro-Western Syrian opposition. The failure to devote considerable
energy to secular, moderate Syrian opposition groups and the president’s
delay of military action will probably mean more support and growth for
al-Qaeda-linked jihadists fighting to oust Assad’s regime.
Last
night, President Obama needed to outline Iran’s role as the main
sponsor of Assad and global terrorism — and the profound effects it has
for U.S. national security. And he still does.
— Benjamin
Weinthal is a Berlin-based fellow at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies. Follow Benjamin on Twitter @BenWeinthal
No comments:
Post a Comment