Syria Alters Obama’s Foreign Policy

At this stage, the question of the Syrian conflict appears to no longer be whether there will be a military strike, but rather when. Given this, the U.S. has changed its thus far hesitant course of action in the Arab crisis. At the time of his inauguration, President Barack Obama visualized a foreign policy that would be very different.

Riots in Tunisia, a freely elected but overthrown president in Egypt and the civil war in Syria with the alleged use of chemical weapons — the situation in the Arab region is anything but stable, a different environment than at the time of Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

At that time, Obama had high aims for his foreign policy: a new beginning for the relationship with Russia and the same planned for the Arab world. But now the reality of things demands a new approach from the United States, an approach that until now Washington had only meant to change hesitantly. As such, the government has so far refused to describe the removal of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt as a coup. They have also held back so far with threats of military action in Syria. Time and time again, Washington has spoken of a political solution needing to be found.

With the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, however, the situation has changed. The government has expressed more clearly than ever that they do not doubt that the regime in Damascus is behind the apparent hundreds of deaths caused by toxic gas attacks. The “red line” has been crossed. Obama spoke about this line when there was suspicion that the Assad regime could potentially use chemical weapons. That meant the U.S. would then take action. But the warnings evidently fizzled out. The images from the last few days of dozens of dead — especially lots of children — have startled people, and this will now officially force a reaction from the West in the event that U.N. inspectors confirm suspicions.

No Speech in Washington on Overthrowing Assad

Even if now the question appears to be when — not if — the U.S. will strike, Washington is still attempting resistance in certain ways. It’s not about a lengthy military operation, but rather a two-day campaign, and it‘s also not about overthrowing Syrian President Bashar Assad, reports The Washington Post. The U.S. being roped further into the conflict should be prevented because the Obama government knows for sure it will not get a U.N. mandate for an attack on Syria as it did in Libya. And even there the intervention was more than disputed.

The general public in the States is anything but enthusiastic about being pulled into another war. According to a Reuters/Ipsos survey from the weekend, a large majority (60 percent) oppose an American military operation. Obama must now balance satisfying national interest on one side without running the risk of losing international credibility on the other.

He said himself in March 2011 about the operation in Libya: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” If the Assad regime has indeed been using toxic gas, he can be measured by these exact words.

Ice Age with Russia Anyway

Obama also knows he has power behind him in Great Britain, which will support him so that the U.S. would not have to go it alone (which it would not do, anyway). France could also be a potential ally, since the country — albeit under a different president — was on the United States’ side during the operation in Libya.

The U.S. president knows that with a military strike, the new start with Russia he once sought will move further into the distance, since President Vladimir Putin opposes it and Moscow has so far been behind the Assad regime. But the relationship between the two states has massively cooled off over the last few weeks anyway due to the Snowden affair, so Obama can budget for this danger.

For the Obama government it will also be important to show strength and decisiveness, because Obama has been previously accused of dragging his feet. Analysts say the U.S. president has predicted the development in the Arab world incorrectly (even though no one could have predicted the uprisings). And so the U.S. occasionally seems perplexed by what the next and correct step should be. If in Syria there is a military strike (let’s say “not” for now), then the time for action — which is apparent not only in Washington — appears to have now arrived.