Obama and the Middle East Dilemma

While everyone stares at the ever shifting, ever blurring Syrian Chemical Weapons red line which is now befuddling the White House, the Syrian civil war continues to wind on and on eventually to determine who will prove supreme, bad or worse. There is no good side to choose in this fight. It now comes down to Assad backed by Iran and Hezballah, the Syrian Free Army which is backed largely by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the al Nusra Front which represents al-Qaeda and even should Bashar Assad be toppled there will still be Hezballah allied with the IRGC guerilla forces attempting to preserve the influence of their Iranian masters. As far as the United States is concerned there is no actual good guy for them to back though President Obama has appeared to have a soft spot for the Muslim Brotherhood in the past.

 

The one democratic country which is very concerned over the eventual results and intermediate activities in Syria is, of course, Israel. While the Israelis are not particularly fond of any of the players, their previous knowledge of Assad may make him the least troublesome of the evils for Israel. Do not misunderstand that Assad would make Israeli leaders overjoyed as they have fought three conflicts against his forces; one in the Six Day War in 1967, once again when both Syria and Egypt launched the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and their final conflict was an air war over the Bekaa Valley in 1982 where the Israelis knocked sixty Syrian fighters from the skies in two days of dog fights losing absolutely no planes themselves. For the memory of these defeats Bashar al-Assad might be sufficiently gun shy that would make his remaining in power preferable to having to teach a new leader the perils of engaging the IDF from scratch.

 

Whatever the eventual result of the civil war in Syria the one thing Israel absolutely cannot allow is for Iran or anybody else to funnel new and more dangerous weapon systems to Hezballah in Lebanon. This is what spurred the recent air raids by the Israelis on Damascus and along the Syrian-Lebanon border over the past week. The Israelis were removing transports carrying new weapon systems which would have posed a serious increase in the threat potential of Hezballah. One can only imagine what such systems might have entailed as Hezballah already possesses at a minimum sixty-thousand rockets of various ranges with which to threaten Israel. Despite such a seemingly overwhelming threat potential, Iran has still decided it is worth the possible losses to attempt to further arm Hezballah in order to turn their threat into a certainty that Tel Aviv would be decimated in return for any actions taken against the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has made it very certain that it matters not who attacks their nuclear program, Israel will receive the brunt of the Iranian response through Hezballah and Hamas and Syria providing Syria is still a part of the Iranian Shiite Crescent across the Middle East.

 

Meanwhile, back in Washington DC President Obama is doing a number of pirouettes on the head of a pin trying to avoid being pinned down to his red line should Syria use chemical weapons threat. Syria has, according to Israeli, French, British and even most United States sources, already deployed Sarin nerve agent against the rebel forces and civilians. There have been reports of multiple usages yet President Obama continues to squirm and wrestle with these facts attempting to twist them into a cloud of doubts in order to back away from the precipice and avoid actually being forced to act. The problem President Obama is facing is that he really miscalculated when making a threat he never expected to have to ever face. Now that reality has not only caught up but has swept past his threat of action crossing over his red line, President Obama must now fudge the facts and blow enough smoke that he can claim that his red line was more flexible and has remained inviolate, but with his red line not only crossed but rather obliterated, President Obama has been left appearing completely toothless in all ways concerning Syrian use of chemical weapons.

 

There is one huge problem beyond the simple fact that President Obama has been rendered impotent concerning events in Syria; all of his threats and posturing over the Iranian nuclear program are now mute and meaningless. This can only serve to make the Iranian nuclear weapons threat even more potent as it is now obvious that President Obama never actually intended to ever take action in order to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. This leaves all of Europe as well as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the other nations within the GCC, and anyone else who Iran may see as an opponent directly in the crosshairs of a potential nuclear Iran. What makes things even more clouded is that now all of the intelligence information which originated with the United States or was heavily influenced by the United States now cannot be considered to be anything other than a ruse to prevent the appearance of a need to act. This is very likely to cause a complete reevaluation of the entire Iranian situation by Israel at the very least. The backing away from his red line by President Obama has resulted in the entire world now realizing that they are on their own when it comes to the Iranian threats. This can only lead to a more dangerous Middle East, like anybody thought such was even possible.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Empty Threats

President Obama has managed to take the full might and power of the United States of America and make it as impotent as a child who threatens to hold their breath until they turn blue. Once again this week President Obama stepped up and reiterated his willingness to act should Bashir Assad or either rebel group utilize any of Syria’s extensive stores of chemical weapons. His actions were necessitated by reports of possible use of said chemical weapons as reported by the intelligence agencies of France and Britain. These reports coincided with a more strongly worded statement from the head of Israeli military intelligence that President Bashir Assad had indeed used his chemical weapons. The Israeli communicated that they had proof that Syrian troops had released Sarin nerve agent on two occasions and not just military grade tear gas whose use had been reported earlier. This was likely stressed as President Obama had discounted the use of the military grade tear gas as not being sufficient to cross President Obama’s red line on chemical weapon use. The Israeli report was initially confirmed by United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who later retreated from his position claiming to have been surprised by the Israeli claim as they had not informed him while he had been visiting Israel earlier on the week. So, where does that leave things?

 

The thing about the Israeli claim is it was backed up by the Syrian rebel forces which are currently receiving nonlethal supplies from Western powers when they admitted to knowledge that Israeli agents were working within Syria and would quite likely have first-hand evidence of any chemical weapons use. For the rebels to actually admit to the presence of Israelis inside Syria is a rather bold statement that would not be issued lightly. Despite the mounting evidence that Bashir Assad has resorted to using his chemical weapons, President Obama has chosen inaction and a simple restatement of his initial threat that any use of chemical weapons by either side would result in immediate action by the United States. When the initial reports of potential use of chemical weapons was issued by Britain and France President Obama requested clarification as to which chemicals were known to have been released. When it was then reported that there were suspicions of possible caustic chemicals as well as the aforementioned tear gas, President Obama dismissed the rumored use of caustic agents dismissing them as equally possible industrial chemicals such as chlorine being accidentally released as a result of the use of explosive munitions. When President Obama backed off these initial reports it might have been understandable that the American threshold to qualify as chemical weapons use was higher than that of their European allies and Israel. But with the reports of Sarin gas being released on the battlefields of Syria one might expect a reaction from the United States at least somewhat stronger than words, especially a stale repetition of the President’s original warnings. Does President Obama really believe that setting a red line and then when it is violated, simply resetting the red line will gain respect from the likes of Bashir Assad, a treacherous dictator who has already murdered tens of thousands of his own countrymen and sent millions into exile will recoil in fear from mere words that President Obama has given indication he never intended to back with actual actions?

 

And Bashir Assad is far from the only world leader watching to see if President Obama is a credible leader who backs his words with actions. There is always North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, another one who likes to hear himself threaten. The one thing absolutely necessary to keep the likes of Kim Jong-Un impotent is to mean action when one threatens to use it. If Kim Jong-Un expects for a minute that any threat of action by the United States is not going to be actually executed, then he is very likely to act on his threats in the belief that there would be no real consequences. And Kim Jong-Un is not the most dangerous of threats on the international stage. There is Iran and the Ayatollahs with their nuclear project which thus far words have proven to be less than useless, yet here too President Obama appears to be satisfied to talk until a nuclear Iran is a verified fact and a half a dozen cities around the world lie as smoldering ruins. With new leadership in Mainland China there is a need for the words of the President of the United States to have great weight, not great doubts. It is for exactly such reasons that President Obama must not allow his word to become a matter for questions rather than being taken at face value and his every word heeded. It is for reasons of credibility that President Obama may find necessity requiring him to act against the Syrian chemical weapons threat. It is not necessary for United States military forces to put boots on the ground as all that is required to fulfill President Obama’s warnings against the use of chemical weapons would be to destroy the chemical weapon storage facilities. My bet would be that should President Obama decide to commit a couple of B-2 stealth bombers, as he did in a show of strength to Kim Jong-Un, to actually bomb the Syrian chemical weapon stores, Israel would be more than agreeable to provide accurate coordinates and might even offer to turn off the Syrian radar grid, though such would not be really necessary with stealth bombers. The old children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me,” does not apply in the realm of world politics where words can do one great harm, even break more than bones.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Have the Talks Failed?

Sometimes, when allowed to, talks between two sides reach a point where no further compromise is possible. Both sides feel they have given enough or one side has done the far greater amount of giving while the other side has refused to make even the slightest of concessions. The talks have been ongoing with an on again off again drumbeat which marked the passage of time, not agreements. Even pressure put upon the talks with expressions of the grave and vital importance made clear. Grand schemes have been proposed and failed to force a change in either side. President Obama has made demands that were designed to facilitate progress, yet there was still no progress. Everybody around the world has had their two cents worth of advice and the talks have stalled again and again. Grand bargains have been offered and have caused a crack of light to appear signaling perhaps a miracle only to return to moribund silence between the two sides. The United Nations has pleaded and shown deep concern even to the point of offering to assist in any way they might be invited, but that too fell on deaf ears. What is a world to do when one side of a situation that screams out for justice and compromise refuses compromises and chooses to scream about the injustices that have been done to them. And all that has befell the intransigent side the other claims they have brought upon themselves by taking the path of refusal and obstinacy.

But with the New Year there are signs that President Obama will bring changes and by his will alone force movement in the talks towards a mutually beneficial resolution. His promises sound vaguely familiar; perhaps we have heard these promises before. Vice President Biden makes a plea restating an old offer expressing the hope that this is the time that perchance this offer should be accepted. Then, with only a moment’s wait, a mere few days, and the obstinate side remains obstinate, refusing the offer with a steely cold denial. There is a deep exhalation as many had held their breathe anticipating a change, but alas there will be no movement. There is still hope that there can be a new round of talks made possible if only there is the perseverance to bring it to fruition. We wait often believing we caught sight of the glimmer of the light of hope but then again it may have just been flashes in our own eyes and nothing of the tangible sort. Can there be progress? Should we still hold out hope? What if the worst of the worst should come and the talks prove to be futile and have been merely a long exercise in futility? Will we be able to face the consequences and do what we know must be done? If we refuse to admit the failure, then what will become of us? Will the impasse lead to war as had been predicted by some who told us long ago that our faith in talks was fruitless? Will there be no other way out of the predicament which we now find ourselves having to admit? It is too harsh a reality. The talks must be reopened and another chance be given for progress, compromise, a last hope. We have to allow the time for talks to work, and they will work, they must work. But what if they don’t?

President Obama has told us that the talks would lead to peace and security and put an end to any difficulties, any threats, any dangers. The President assured us in dulcet tones that he could make the talks work if only they would listen to his generous offers and reasonable requests. Kindness, after all, always calms and defeats harsh rhetoric, heals wounds and works wonders, after all, did not his promises and words win him election? All we had to do is allow his words to work their spell. But now his words have the hint of panic and defeat and have lost some of their melodic and hypnotic overtones. His sweet overtures have slowly changed taking on a rasp of harshness and now have the sharp retort-filled tones of rapid gunfire.

There is to be yet another round of talks, or so we have been led to believe. Can they really make any difference at this late date? Why should we continue to hold out hope as all has certainly proven hopeless? The last refusal of a generous offer of direct talks had the dead tones of finality. The discussions with the arm of the United Nations on their dual track was refused and abruptly cut off just a short while ago. Their track seems to have come to their end. They have reached the gorge and there does not appear to be a bridge. Are our tracks equally coming to that gorge that has no bridge? It will be a harsh pill to swallow if the warnings from Israel prove true. What do we do now that there is no path forward through discourse and all the talking has been revealed to be a ruse used to stall for time? What are we to do? Yes, sure we will go ahead with the talks we have managed to agree we will hold, but if they fail once again, then what?

And for the really big question, what is it that President Obama will be discussing on his trip to Israel next month? We have been told that President Obama will not be making any plans to force a reopening of the equally moribund talks between Israel and the Palestinians and they plan other discussion. Could it be that President Obama will be talking with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to advise him of what will come should the last gasp talks with Iran continue to fail? With the growing reluctance and intransigence by Iran and the obvious failure of the P5+1 talks to produce even the smallest concession which could be verified, what can we expect other than a waste of breathe and time with another round of talks. It really does seem obvious that we have been talking just to hear ourselves talk. Perhaps we must admit to ourselves that we have been talking because the alternative is too frightening to even think about. We have been so determined to avoid what has been the inevitability of the rising menace named Iran that we have talked ourselves almost to death. While we aimed to avoid war Iran has aimed for the ultimate weapon of war and our determination of avoidance has brought them dangerously close to their goal, maybe even they have attained what they desired. What will we tell our children if we find that Iran has truly reached the goal and now already possesses a small cache of nuclear devices? How will we excuse our timidity which enabled the rising bully to so equip itself? Have we talked ourselves to the brink of doom or beyond, that is the question that needs an immediate answer. And what are we going to do even if the answer is affirmative? Will we then continue to talk only this time the talk will be about how much we surrender before it becomes too much. What if we talked ourselves into that oblivion? As Shakespeare wrote, “Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.” Have we so protested too much and now are left with too little leverage to gain advantage? Did we whittle away any advantage we originally had? That would indeed be a sad state of affairs. Very sad.

Beyond the Cusp