Obama’s Stubbornness Can Only Be Explained by Conspiracy Theory

By the time the compromise between Moscow and Washington (with the help of the European Union) seemed close enough to be concluded, Barack Obama decided to return to his former priorities. First, remove Assad from his post, and next, figure out the Islamic State situation. There is no logical explanation for the stubbornness of the American leader. Apparently, we will have to appeal to conspiracy theory.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama listened to the words of those advisers who, during the last couple years, have been saying that Bashar Assad is the main enemy of all of progressive mankind. During Obama’s speech at the APEC summit, he said there is no possible solution to the Islamic State problem while Bashar Assad remains in charge of Syria. Mr. Obama, as usual, did not provide any case for his position.

Thus, the U.S. returned to its previous position: first, remove Assad from his post, then figure out the Islamic State situation. Russia’s position toward this subject is the complete opposite. Just a couple of days ago, right after the summit in Antalya, it seemed the positions of Moscow and Washington on Syria had finally conciliated.

“The U.S. goal is to get rid of Assad. Probably so. Our goal is to defeat terrorism, fight terror, help President Assad defeat terror, thus creating conditions for the start, and, I hope, successful conclusion of the political settlement process. I believe this is the only right way,” stated Vladimir Putin during the 12th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Over the past week, the position of Russia’s administration has not changed. The political settlement is possible only after the victory over the Islamic State group and the restoration of Syria's territorial sovereignty. Moreover, Moscow has held talks with the representatives of the so-called moderate opposition to Assad and pre-agreed on joint actions against the Islamic State group.

Until recently, France implacably refused to negotiate with Assad, but after the Paris attacks it seems Francois Hollande understands the main enemy of his country is the Islamic State group and not Syria’s official authority. The scientific centers and funds close to American Republicans also demand [Syria] “get rid of Assad.” Turkish authorities also do not like Assad, nor do the Gulf monarchies: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. However, the three Gulf monarchies mentioned above have been suspected of repeatedly financing not only the “moderate opposition” in Syria but also some terrorist organizations.

The saying "tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are” seems to be international. But for some reason, American politicians, experts and the consumers of these experts’ opinions are confused that among their list of allies there are not just totalitarian countries, who are completely ignoring basic human rights, but also, most likely, sponsors of terrorism.

Perhaps the most mysterious aspect of Obama’s anti-Assad rhetoric is the impossibility of rationally explaining it, leaving only conspiracy theories. The reasons Russia supports Assad can be understood. There are examples in Libya and Iraq of times when the U.S. and its allies’ interference and demolition of secular states led to formation of terrorist enclaves. The deposition of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt led Islamists to power, and if it were not for a traditionally influential army, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in Russia, would still be in power in Cairo.

Therefore, Moscow staked Assad as the legitimate secular leader who could keep the situation in the country under control, until the Western world interfered in the Syrian conflict and started shipping arms to the “moderate opposition.” At the same time, Russia repeatedly stated that Assad’s presidency is not an end in and of itself and that it is necessary to solve the question of who will govern Syria after a victory over the Islamic State group. A bet on the current government is a bet on order against chaos, and the identity of the leader is not critical.

Why is Barack Obama so disturbed by his Syrian colleague? Because of Assad’s “undemocratic” behavior and his human rights violations? Well, there is way less democracy in Saudi Arabia, where human rights are violated on a regular basis. In Cuba, with whom the U.S. reconciled not so long ago, neither democracy nor human rights exist in the common American sense. [There is] no "Castro must go" idea either.

Because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons against his people? First of all, the identities of those who used sarin were never proven: the government army (the reason they would do so is obscure, but let’s assume it was the government army) or the opposition (in order to gain the assistance of the international forces and depose Assad, a simple logical deduction). Secondly, there are no more chemical weapons in Syria and nothing to be afraid of because of Russia’s efforts.

We are forced to advance either emotional or conspiracy theories due to the absence of rationally logical reasons for the stubbornness of the U.S. authorities.

Perhaps Washington’s stubbornness is caused by a simple offense. The U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions against Assad in 2011 as they struggled to remain his opponents – but he is still there. The above-mentioned Castro brothers and the ayatollahs' regime in Iran were inherited by the current generation of American politicians from their predecessors, but Assad is a personal failure of Obama and current State Department officials. That’s why they are trying to get their own way through pure stubbornness. This version does not look very credible because emotions in international politics, generally, are a sign of unacceptable weakness. But if we exclude the emotional version, all that remains is conspiracy theory.

That America is the indirect initiator of the Islamic State group – because it weakened secular regimes in the Middle East – is obvious to everyone but the “democracy export” itself. There is a great variety of conspiracy websites – not only in Russian, but also in English. There, you can find information that seriously states the U.S. intentionally destroyed statehood in Libya, Iraq and Syria to create a hotbed of tension in the world away from U.S. borders, to hinder opportunities for Russian businesses to make new contracts, to prevent Arab unity, to take control of the petroleum market and so on and so forth. There are many conspiracy websites, each allowing you to choose whatever version you like the best.

On the one hand, serious expert communities treat conspiracy theories with a fair share of contempt and skepticism. But on the other hand, when those “serious expert communities” demand Assad’s resignation without any explanation, you start thinking, “Why do they really want this and what are their real goals?”

Francois Hollande will visit Washington next week and then Moscow in hopes of creating a broad coalition against the Islamic State group. If he will be able to solve the “Assad problem" and which arguments he will present for or against the Syrian president retaining his power is not yet clear.

Also, it is not clear why it is starting to be considered normal for the leaders of one country to be regarded as colleagues and leaders of the other countries being regarded as “illegitimate” (without any explanations for such antipathy).