Obama and the Syrian Revolution, Again

We have all written extensively on the U.S. administration's position on the Syrian revolution, and in particular President Obama's weak and hesitant stance. The U.S. media continues to discuss the same topic, mostly centered around a specific question: What is Obama waiting for in order to intervene?

There are serious criticisms of the U.S. administration, and not from members of Congress or human rights organizations, but from the media, known for its soft treatment of President Obama. Writers known to reflect Obama's viewpoints are wondering what the U.S. is waiting for before intervening in Syria. American journalist David Ignatius has written one of the most prominent articles, summarizing the nature of Syrian militant groups. Ignatius calls on the U.S. to make a move now and coordinate with Saudi Arabia, not only to bring down Assad, but also to minimize the dangers of a post-Assad Syria.

Of course, in light of these criticisms of Obama's administration, there are other articles that try to read the U.S. position in a Machiavellian way, saying that the lack of a U.S. intervention and continued killing in Syria actually serves U.S. interests because it keeps Iran occupied and weakens Hezbollah. This is a truly misguided analysis and a naive outlook, aiming to polish the U.S. administration's position.

It is nonsense to state that what is happening in Syria does not present a danger to U.S. security. The Syrian crisis affects the security of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and the whole Mediterranean region, and the failure of the Syrian state would see Syria become an Arab Afghanistan. In the Mediterranean region, a sectarian war would emblazon every area, which would fuel terrorism and destabilize the security of the whole Middle East. This threatens global economic security, too. It is enough to consider what happened in Somalia — namely, the pirates and their harm to international shipping. Then, obligating Washington to continue intervening there, is the situation of al-Qaida's presence in Yemen.

Therefore, not only in the past but currently, Obama's positions indicate failed vision and weak political leadership, especially since the rebels are advancing, and Assad is under siege in Damascus. There is the Russian president, roaring and demanding cessation of armaments, and the Russian acceptance of dialogue on Syria. Keep in mind that the Russians used to speak about Syria with the utmost arrogance. Despite all this, the U.S. administration is incapable of even capitalizing on the efforts of others, most conspicuously not even taking advantage of the rebels' gains. Obama could make a move now and further arm the Free Syrian Army through reputable groups. He could form a coalition of willing allies with the Saudi Arabians and Jordanians at the top of the list. There are also the Turks, Emiratis and Qataris, as well as the French and British. This would not only accelerate Assad's downfall but also ensure that the vacuum he would be leaving behind will be filled.

It is within Obama's power to do all this now, but the problem is that we are facing a hesitant administration, incapable of vision, that does not see the danger the coming days will bring. As we have said before, repeatedly, an Arab-European movement is necessary to clarify the situation for Obama and explain the extent of his losses in Syria and the losses of the region.

Assad has nearly fallen, and the danger is in what is coming.

Who will do it? That's the question!