What Is Obama Betting On?

To anyone following America’s position on the Syrian crisis, it might seem as if one needs an astrologist to understand what the Americans want and what they are planning.

From time to time, Washington has assiduously assured Damascus, “there will be no military intervention in Syria,” explaining at some great length that “Syria is not Libya.”*

When military confrontations broke out in some towns, Washington said that al-Qaida had entered the picture and expressed their fear that arms intended for the opposition might reach al-Qaida. It seemed, on one hand, to indicate support for the completion of the Syrian authorities’ military crackdown and, on the other hand, to send a warning to those willing to arm the opposition.

But this overlooks Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, the ambassador who oversaw the departure of Syrian forces from Lebanon in 2005 and who is well-informed about the issues and underlying secrets of the region. Feltman affirmed, “The demise of the Syrian regime is inevitable.” Perhaps he was trying to raise the Syrian opposition’s morale after the authorities’ crackdown on the suburb of Baba Amr in Homs.

But when President Barack Obama announced that “the days of the Syrian President Bashar Assad are numbered,” and that Washington is working “to accelerate a transition to a peaceful and stable and representative government in Syria,” the matter did not bear any maneuvering. Obama will not venture to renounce such a judicious position as this on the eve of the announcement that he will run for a second presidential term.

The scales of internal power are still tipped in the regime’s favor despite sanctions, isolation within the Arab region and the international community, and armed opposition. Without a doubt, all of this has weakened the regime, but without breaking the regime’s hold on authority or forcing its departure.

But what is Obama concealing in his quiver, wagering that “the Syrian regime’s days are numbered,” if his administration is so careful to confirm day and night that there are no military plans to intervene in Syria, even as un-piloted American spy planes hover over Syrian airspace observing the positions and movements of the Syrian army?

Western diplomatic circles confirm that Obama does not, at this stage, wish for a termination of the Syrian crisis on the ground. Obama, therefore, expects it to continue at least until the American presidential elections in November.

Despite these outright denials, NATO has set three conditions for military intervention: humanitarian need, which demands intervention, regional support and a legal basis.

If regional support is available to some extent in the form of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, then this, along with the increase in acts of violence and casualties, fulfills two of the three conditions required for military intervention. A change in the Russian position in the Security Council remains a crucial requirement, both for altering the balance of power inside Syria and for providing the basis of legal cover for international intervention.

In any event, it appears that the Syrian authorities are content for matters on the ground to stay their course. However, the crisis has only led to an increasing destruction, confrontation and victimization, without an end in sight.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.