Obama's Syrian Dilemma

Yes, as we all expected, Obama has taken the biggest step he could muster on the Syrian issue. What is this step? Last week, I wrapped up my column about Syria like this: "Next week or within the coming month, Obama is expected to announce that Bashar al-Assad must step down from power. This way, the U.S. will give serious moral support to the Syrian resistance as well as put pressure on China and Russia. But will this be enough to have any effect on Damascus?"

Last Thursday, the U.S. finally took the long-awaited step. Now, the Obama Administration has used up all of the diplomatic tools in its arsenal. He has said, "Assad has to go." Very well, but what does that mean? The newly-fashionable phrase, "We're at the point where talk is through," could sum up the situation from Washington's point of view. But when talks finish, what begins?

War? Of course not. The U.S. has no alternative beyond diplomatic and economic pressure. It is for this very reason that the policies of regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia toward Syria are so important to the United States. Economic and diplomatic pressure will be applied thanks to regional powers and the U.N. Security Council. This week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a talk at National Defense University, where I taught a course, emphasizing this very point.

Hillary Clinton responded to inquiries about what Obama means when he says, "Assad must go," saying, "Honestly, the regional influence upon Syria is just as important as Washington's. Turkey is very important, Saudi Arabia is very important. America cannot deliver results alone."* In order to understand how reluctant the U.S. is to engage in a new war in the Middle East, it is important to look at the main issue in the country. For Washington, it is the bad economy. The Obama administration has a single priority: create jobs. It will be impossible to win the 2012 elections with unemployment rate bordering on 10 percent and the economy at a standstill.

At the same time, with such a wide budget gap, no one has an appetite to launch a new military operation. It is plain as day that an operation of the kind that NATO carried out in Libya is ill-suited to Syria. If it were in his power, Obama would have nothing to do with Syria.

Things wouldn't have come to this point so easily if France hadn't taken the lead in the Libyan war in such a cavalier fashion. The Obama Administration is obliged to lend support to England and France in Libya.

As a result, the priority for Washington going forward will be to rally regional players as well as China, Russia and India to its side in order to apply economic and diplomatic pressure. Russia is still playing both ends of the field when it comes to Syria. Moscow's weapons sales to Damascus continue. As for China, it is the largest investor in Syria's energy sector.

On the other hand, Iran continues to be the biggest problem for the U.S. when it comes to Syria. There exists a sectarian bond between the Assad regime and Tehran, and Syria is effectively Iran's window into Lebanon and Palestine; Iran is the biggest supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

Logistical and strategic problems will emerge for Iran if the Syrian regime falls. For this reason, Syria is a key nation in the region for both Iran and the U.S. This is also why Turkey's policy toward Syria is very important. The way Turkey has proceeded thus far makes Iran very uncomfortable, but what kind of leverage will Iran use with Turkey? This question is very important. For this reason, the PKK attacks that have been increasing recently should be viewed from this vantage point.

*Translator’s note: There was no record of this statement on the transcript of the talk provided on Clinton’s blog. What’s more, the talk took place two days before Obama announced that Assad should step down.