Obama Stays Silent on Syria
The U.S. response to the recent events in Syria reveals that the Arab revolts have not completely shaken President Obama’s faith in a misguided policy of engagement with anti-American authoritarian regimes. To date, over two hundred pro-democracy protestors have been slaughtered in a government crackdown in Syria. The U.S. response offers little to be proud of in terms of promoting American interests and ideals. Instead, it compromises both.
There have been two major moments in the U.S. approach to Syria over the course of the past several weeks. First, there were Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks which cited comments characterizing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a reformer. "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer," said Clinton on March 27th. Next was President Obama’s condemnation of violence on April 8th in response to the killing of approximately 20 Syrian protestors in one day.
The Obama administration needs to get a grip on two key points. One, Assad is not a reformer. His March 30th speech confirmed as much. To be sure, Assad has made a few concessions as a result of the protests. He issued a decree granting citizenship to Kurds, lifted the government ban on teachers wearing face veils, and closed a casino. More recently, he formed a new cabinet. But the continued violence in Syria suggests his actions are not necessarily evidence of reform so much as they are attempts to placate unrest. Syrian activists are justified in continuing to push for freedom and democracy.
Two, the U.S. has little interest in Assad retaining his grip on power in Syria. President Obama’s efforts to distance Syria from its ties to Iran and Hezbollah have failed. Besides, if the ultimate goal of that policy was to weaken Iran and Hezbollah, the current situation presents a fresh opportunity to do just that.
How? Given that the Syrian leadership has successfully held onto power for decades, regime change in Syria would put Iran, its close ally, on notice. According to the Israeli Army Radio, Foreign Ministry officials said: “Syria is an Iranian acquisition, and it is clear that Iran is afraid that its investments will go down the drain. So it has allowed for greater involvement than in other Arab countries.” What would be the harm in destabilizing the relationship between Syria and Iran, an alliance that has produced only toxic results?
Would discontinuing Syria’s political and military support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah advance American interests or the cause of peace in the region and throughout the world? Would regime change be a positive development in a leading state sponsor of terrorism credited with training al-Qaeda forces and providing a safe haven for terrorists? It is difficult to argue no.
And it is even more challenging to do so in light of the Libyan intervention. The Obama administration differentiates Syria from Libya, but fails to recognize the key difference: Libya is mired in a tribal war. Syria, on the other hand, conveniently presents an opportunity in which the advancement of American security interests and a humanitarian cause go hand-in-hand.
In praising the Libyan operation, Nicholas Kristof wrote of its potential to “put teeth into the emerging doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” – a landmark notion in international law that countries must intervene to prevent mass atrocities.” He optimistically posited that such an outcome “might help avert the next Rwanda or the next Darfur.” While we can only hope all the money and other resources we have invested pay some such dividend for humankind in the longer-term, the President’s reticence on Syria undermines the likelihood of this prospect.
That is not an endorsement of military intervention in Syria. While the U.S. should do what it can to promote democracy abroad, there are limits to our power. But instead of calling Assad a reformer, the Obama administration should, at the very least, offer a sympathetic word or two to the peaceful protestors in Syria. Rhetoric is a start. Short of military action, there are other steps the President should consider, such as recalling the U.S. Ambassador to Syria.
It is unlikely that Iran would sit by passively in the event of a regime change in Syria. While the U.S. would have every reason to be wary about the nature of a replacement regime in Syria, the opportunity to weaken Iran and empower the Iranian opposition is not one to be missed, especially if it falls into our lap.
After all, with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, time is of the essence. Obama’s misguided policy of engagement with our enemies does not buy time; it merely borrows time while our enemies grow stronger. Ultimately, in its willingness to commit the U.S. to expensive humanitarian interventions and in its simultaneous refusal to drop its misguided policies toward Syria and Iran, the Obama administration’s foreign policy amounts to generational theft. Obama has chosen to commit my generation to a future that may include a nuclear Iran and a U.S. too broke to defend itself. Syria presents an opportunity for the President to try and reverse this failure.