Obama Is Walking on a Tightrope

Although American President Barack Obama is in his second term and he is free from electoral calculations, he nevertheless seems idle in his engagement with the Syrian crisis. He is like one dropped into a predicament. After his administration waited around for 18 months, observing the scenes of killing and destruction in Syria, he gave statements and set “red lines.” However, today the administration found itself losing a lot of its international prestige. It considers itself the greatest country in the world. In Russia, Vladimir Putin has recovered his vitality, and has started finding fault with America’s use of power in international forums. Russia is able to curb American influence and domination, as happened when Moscow stopped the Security Council from making a decision about Syria.

Obama is walking on a political tightrope in his effort to obtain domestic and foreign support to strike Syria. He is searching for a face-saving exit. The man won a Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his first term, before he had done anything on the ground and had succeeded only in delivering structural speeches that played on emotions. It was one of the most important reasons for the optimistic general opinion of him in America and internationally. What Obama announced in his electoral campaign and after taking office was his hatred of war and his stark criticism of the failed wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama faced both opposition and pressure as he attempted to direct a military strike at Syria. It represents the first clear division in Congress. As for the military option, approval is not guaranteed amongst Democrats, and that is a concern acknowledged by the president himself. In addition, the majority of the American people oppose the military option, according to opinion polls. Any defeat of Obama before Congress, such as if it refused to approve a military strike, would weaken Obama, turn him into a “lame duck” and put his credibility at stake. It is not only on foreign issues like the North Korean crisis, the Iranian nuclear issue, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the tensions in a number of Arab countries, but also in the administration’s internal affairs and its engagements with Republicans on financial issues, according to analysts.

Secondly, there is widespread international opposition to the use of force. That was one manifestation of what happened at the G20 summit, which took place in Moscow last week, when nine countries in the group refused to sign a statement calling for a strong response to the Syrian regime because of the suspicion of its use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta massacre, whereas 11 countries signed it. Observers have interpreted that as a success for the Russian President Putin, whose country leads the movement against military action. That is in addition to the conservative positions expressed by Secretary General of the U.N. Ban Ki-moon, linking any military action to U.N. Security Council agreements. That approval is far-fetched because of the Russian veto!

In an atmosphere like that, it seems difficult for Washington to form a powerful alliance to support military action, especially after the exit of Britain — traditionally America’s closest ally — from the game with Parliament’s decision to refuse to take part in the war. Nonetheless, the decision to strike remains in the hands of one man, and that is Obama. It has become clear that the strike will be “limited,” if it happens, and it will be restricted to bombing selected targets for a short time, without seeking the fall of the regime.

Despite the effort that Washington is exerting to mobilize international support for the use of force, it has found that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis, as the State Department spokesperson Jennifer Basaki said. Remarkably, Secretary of State John Kerry has had more contact with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, and they have discussed the revival of mutual perceptions of their countries, as well as convening a “Geneva 2” conference for peace in Syria, which is supposed to include representatives from both the regime and its opposition.

Similarly, Basaki said that Washington is sticking to Geneva as a way to negotiate a political solution, and that the administration is working on the relevant details for holding the conference. This means that there is a diplomatic channel parallel to brandishing the use of power, and that a strike, if it happens, will be a ‘dynamic strike’ in order to move to the negotiating table.

Foreign military intervention, whatever its size, would wreak havoc on the capacities of the Syrian people, even if there were only military targets. They were originally funded by the capacities of the Syrian people. Even now it seems that the debate about the strike rages, and it tends to favor the Syrian regime, while the opposition is open to the military option. I think that the regime is capable of a smart political plan, recognizing this climate, avoiding the strike, exiting this situation with some dignity, and saving the country and the people from more pain and destruction.

The conditions for removing the regime are that it be a last-minute move, without deception, to abandon political fraud, arrogance and empty challenges. It would achieve a Don Quixotian victory, and the required initiative must be simple and clear. It would include an announcement by President Bashar al-Assad of his non-candidacy in the presidential elections scheduled for the coming year. The agreement is unconditional on going to Geneva to search for a formula for transferring power to one national government with full power, developing a roadmap for building a democratic, pluralist regime that responds to the desires of the Syrian people, who have made enormous sacrifices to arrive at freedom.