A War to Justify a Nobel Peace Prize

The Middle East’s harsh reality has been a slap in the face for Obama. Daniel Ben Simon believes that Obama will succeed in convincing Congress to attack Syria—but this scenario strays far from the vision of peace that has characterized Obama’s tenure thus far.

It is likely that U.S. officials did not adequately estimate how difficult it would be, in our day and age, to punish a rebellious nation. The act of punishment in itself is not as difficult as the attempt to gain widespread support for such an act. We must acknowledge how difficult this situation is for President Barack Obama, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. If not for President Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his people, Obama would most likely have been able to truly carry out his vision for peace.

After the military traumas of Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama has tried to open a new chapter on his country’s foreign policy. Two and a half year ago, Obama delivered a formative speech to the State Department in which he introduced a global vision that placed human rights, rather than self-interest, and the struggle against violence and oppression in the starring role in U.S. foreign policy. He stated, “It is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.”

In other words, this was not just another egoistic foreign policy that focused solely on America’s interests, but rather a foreign policy based on higher moral values. Immediately following his appointment as secretary of state, John Kerry was sent to the Middle East to establish peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Kerry invested more energy in Jerusalem and Ramallah than he did in any other international matter; and within months, Kerry, who analysts and politicians have previously dubbed “naïve,” has catalyzed the first process toward talks between the two parties in many years. He was on his way to instill peace in other areas of the world—until that bitter and dark day of August 21.

Debt to the UK, Compensation to France

Within hours, the United States had to return to its natural role: Lead the way for punitive action against those who dared use a weapon of mass destruction against their own people, and this time, with proof of its use. This breech of the red line in U.S. foreign policy regarding the Syrian civil war immediately translated into a necessity to act.

Last Friday, Obama and Kerry once again faced the countries that are supposed to provide support for an American offensive. This time, both of them used the new lexicon introduced by Obama. However, this time, Kerry was more determined. The U.S. diplomat tried to convince others of the need for “limited” military action based on the aforementioned American values. In his speech, Kerry declared that “fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility,” in reference to the military fatigue brought upon the United States through operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He continued, “History would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency.”

Such an act, which seemed to gain international support 10 days ago, now encountered surprising hurdles. The British Parliament dealt a heavy blow to the White House, while the president of France actually granted the United States a very generous safety net. The roles of France and England have reversed: In 2003, the invasion of Iraq incited millions of French people to take to the streets, and President Jacque Chirac and the Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin expressed strict and even vitriolic opposition to the invasion. Conversely, Great Britain, under the leadership of Tony Blair at the time, fully supported the invasion. There is no doubt that the day will arrive to repay the debt to Britain. There is no doubt that the day to compensate France will also come.

Obama faces a true test of leadership. In coming days, the president, who possesses the greatest power of persuasion since Ronald Reagan, will have to do the unthinkable: Ask for the support of the Senate and House of Representatives in order to carry out a strike in Syria. He will probably succeed in promoting the need to punish President Assad’s regime. The strike will come. The question is not “if” but “when.”

The harsh reality in the Middle East delivered a blow to Obama as it did to his predecessors. Almost no U.S. president in recent decades has escaped unscathed by the capricious whims of leaders in this region. In his second term, Obama wished for a sort of “faux Americana” to justify the Nobel Peace Prize he received in his first term. He even marked the outlines of that same policy. How ironic that the moral and ethical imperatives that he added to U.S. policy in order to widen the circle of peace are actually what forced him to embark upon another war. His liberal admirers and followers, who have wished for the success of his vision, will soon have to support an additional military strike with an unpredictable outcome. Such a scenario probably did not appear to them even in their most horrid nightmares.