Did U.S. President
Barack Obama really decide to indefinitely postpone the attack on Syria,
citing the legality of the decision, or was this a clever
disinformation maneuver meant to ensure that the American strike will be
as effective as possible?
If, as it appears, he
simply delayed the action to an undefined later date, then Obama's
speech may have been the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's last attempt to
preserve his clean reputation as a promoter of peace while
simultaneously communicating to the world that his country is still the
leader of the free world in values and international conduct.
Handing off the
decision to Congress, justifying the move by saying that the U.S. is a
democratic nation, is nearly without precedent since World War II. When
it comes to all the major wars in which the U.S. has been involved in
over the last hundred years, the decision to strike was made exclusively
by the president. Waiting for congressional confirmation essentially
means avoiding striking while the iron is hot and generally ignoring the
possible strategic changes in the immediate future, which could prevent
an American assault for a variety of reasons.
Beside the strategic
ramifications, this is also a serious blow to U.S. leadership in the
existing international order.
The American president is now poised to
attend the G-20 summit in Saint Petersburg next week, as someone who
backtracked at the last minute for reasons not entirely clear to parts
of the international community.
Three completely
different audiences listened closely to Obama's speech on Saturday:
Syria and its leaders; Russia and China; and the U.S. allies in the
Middle East, with Israel at the forefront, but also Jordan, Turkey and
Saudi Arabia. Syria's leaders have every reason to feel that they have
won a reprieve (after all, the British have also backed down from
supporting a military strike), enabling them to freely use any type of
weapon at their disposal until the event of an American strike, if one
should ever occur.
Setting aside the
possibility that this is a case of strategic disinformation, Obama's
decision constitutes a retreat into the type of isolationism that the
U.S. has not seen since the 1920s. Clearly, Russia will be the big
winner in this scenario: Over the last week, Russian leaders have warned
Obama in various ways against staging an attack on Syria. Obama's
decision to back down undermines the U.S.'s credibility and power of
deterrence in the international arena while boosting the credibility of
Russian threats. One possible outcome could be a deepening of the
Syrian-Russia alliance, and the spreading of Russian temptations around
the new Middle East regimes. China, whose presence in our region has
been minimal, could also feel that its partnership with Russia served to
underscore the Russian threats and cemented its own standing in the
Middle East.
On the other hand, the
big losers are the governments associated with the U.S. and its
declining regional status. Israel, first and foremost, must now stand
guard when it comes to foreign policy and security. To what degree, for
example, will the U.S. back Israel if a peace deal is reached with the
Palestinians and they breach it? Judging from the current situation, the
U.S. will most likely issue some weak diplomatic protest, but refrain
from really stepping in to support Israel, even if it is one of the
signatories of the agreement in question.
Keep in mind that the
U.S. recently threatened to discontinue its aid to Egypt over the
military coup there, thus sabotaging one of the main pillars that hold
up Israel's peace agreement with Egypt. Such a threat, which means a
potential violation of the agreement, and the steps (or lack thereof)
against Syria, alongside the isolationist policy, raise serious doubts
regarding the logic of making any kind of concessions to the
Palestinians -- certainly territorial concessions. The leaders of
Jordan, a moderate, peace-seeking country threatened by Syria, are most
likely also very worried by Obama's decision. Will he take action
against Syria if the latter strikes Jordan in "retaliation for their
support of the rebels?" Turkey, for its part, shares these concerns, and
more.
The absence of a
military strike immediately following the clear violation of
international law (use of chemical weapons) hurts, and will continue to
harm the U.S.'s standing in the international arena. One should hope
that if the U.S. does attack Syria, it will do so sooner rather than
later, when it may well be too late.
Alexander Bligh is the director of the Middle East Research Center at Ariel University.
No comments:
Post a Comment