Red Lines and Blank Faces

There are many defining characteristics of Barack Obama’s policies during his second administration. Three of those characteristics come to the forefront, starting with his “red lines” and ending with his blank faces. First and foremost of these characteristics are his “red lines” with regard to the crisis in Syria, which remind us of an example that, while greatly differing in subject matter, is in keeping with the policies and strategies that he employs in addressing all manner of issues in similar ways. This is in the same manner as the “red lines” which he previously put forth in reference to the Israeli settlements issue, which later ended with the Israeli government building 8,000 hectares of settlements on Palestinian territories, while Obama appeased the world and the Palestinian authority with promises of halting these settlements.

The second defining characteristic of Obama’s policies in general during both his first and second administrations would be his notorious indecisiveness, as well as his backing down from what he previously called “red lines.” This is to such a degree that it causes members of Congress to question and bemoan the real motives behind this indecisiveness.

The third characteristic of Obama’s strategies can be observed in his reliance upon the systems in the Middle East that he has cultivated to serve U.S. interests in this most pivotal and influential place in the world today. Such is the case in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Obama has occasion to be “proud” of his withdrawal of U.S. Special Operations forces there, only to employ long-range air strikes as an alternative. This is in addition to his usual reliance upon his traditional allies, beginning with the Hebrew nation, extending to Saudi Arabia — it being the strongest U.S. ally among the oil-rich Gulf States — and ending with Qatar, in its capacity as a U.S. protectorate. These days Qatar plays among the most important and precarious roles regarding the U.S. administration, given the support that Doha supplies to fundamentalist organizations holding extremist jihadi views. This is in spite of every possibility that these extremist groups will abandon the service of vital U.S.-Gulf political interests during upcoming stages, should they have an occasion to cut the cord that the Obama administration has wrapped around the monarchical gulf systems.

At the same time, there are a great many blank faces presiding over the regional and international contingents, issuing threats to Syria when it does not hastily yield to U.S. and European wishes and cease to threaten the interests of the traditional Middle East allies. Most prominent among these blank faces is that of British Foreign Minister William Hague, who could not hide his delight over the lifting of the ban on arming terrorist groups in Syria. As for the blankest face, that would be Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, who has not stopped issuing threats to the Syrian government — such a world of difference from his father King Faisal’s historical stance, the latter having threatened to cut off the West’s access to oil during the October War four decades ago. The third blank face, and the most prominent one in the regional arena, would be that of Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who is threatening that his Zionism impels him to do what he feels is necessary in the event that Russian S-300 air defense systems arrive on Syrian soil.

There are a great many red lines that Obama sets down and then overlooks, and even more of those blank faces that don’t hesitate to issue threats to Syria with or without occasion. Just as they do not hesitate to express their delight with supplying weapons to terrorists in Syria, on the grounds that these weapons are the most useful tool with which to serve the interests of the Syrian people’s enemies.