The Election in America and Syria

There is a growing impression that Washington’s inaction on the topic of Syria is almost completely based on the presidential election in November. Well, then, let’s ask: If the United States presidential election weren’t this close, would America say yes to a military operation in Syria? Is the entire Syria plan in Washington based on the election calendar? I pointed this out in an earlier column. The Obama administration is against a military operation in Syria regardless of the election calendar, but the election is an important factor.

The Obama administration does not have the luxury of ignoring the will of the American public. The people of the United States are fed up with the Middle East. They do not want another military adventure or intervention in a region close to Iran. The people of the United States are currently more focused on domestic issues, as a result of the never ending crisis and increasing debt. It’s not just the public, but also the administration that is fed up with the Middle East. The Obama administration, which just withdrew from Iraq, and which will withdraw from Afghanistan shortly, wants to save itself from Islamic lands.

Apart from Israel and Iran, the role of the Middle East in Washington’s long-term foreign policy strategy is in serious decline. According to strategic calculations, in the 21st century the most serious military, economic and geopolitical threats will arise not in the Middle East, but rather in Asia. For this reason the attention of the United States has shifted much more intensively toward Asia. In terms of the United States’ threat perception, we also see a pivot toward Asia. China especially is seen as a superpower that could create problems for Washington in a range of areas.

OK, you will ask: If Asia, and particularly China, is at the forefront of the plan, then why did the United States play such an active role in the crisis in Libya? An important factor that is keeping Obama out of Syria is the fact that conditions similar to those in Libya have not developed. In contrast to the Bush period, the Obama administration gives a lot of importance to international legitimacy. The support of the United Nations was very important during the operations in Libya. Syria, in comparison to Libya, is a much more sensitive area for the balance of power in the Middle East. The United States does not want to go it alone — in other words, without Russia and China.

Furthermore, the Obama administration knows very well that intervention in Syria carries the risk of a military conflict with Iran. Obama’s foreign policy is based on avoiding a military confrontation with Iran and giving diplomacy a chance. Just as Washington had to apply a double standard on the issue of Bahrain, it is stuck in a difficult situation with regard to Syria because of geostrategic considerations. Moreover, from America’s viewpoint, Syria is different from other places such as Libya, Egypt and Tunisia because of its sectarian problems.

On top of all of this must be added the experience in Iraq. When Saddam left, the country experienced a civil war worse than the one that took place during his administration. It wasn’t tens of thousands, but rather hundreds of thousands, who died. The United States does not want to see itself in a situation where it is stuck as the responsible party for a civil war in the Middle East, and forced to intervene. For all these reasons, do not expect a big change in Washington’s position on Syria until after the elections.