Barack Obama has taken modest but unmistakable steps toward the acceptance of an inevitable reality: the war in Syria will not have a happy, imminent or simple end without greater military involvement from the United States.
The conflict in Syria has reached a point where Obama cannot remain indifferent without putting in danger not just the future of Syria, but also the influence of the United States in the region. Washington could be forced to act in a more aggressive way if it does not want to lose control over affairs in the country.
The New York Times reports that a debate has been started in the administration about how far to go in Syria, from delivering weapons to the rebels to direct military intervention. For now, the latter option has been thrown out, but it could return to the table, at least when one considers a peacekeeping force to guarantee a possible ceasefire.
Thanks to their diplomatic pressure, the U.S. has already achieved the formal unity of the Syrian rebel groups. There are still doubts about who exercises control over this conglomerate, but the U.S. administration is ready to grant it official recognition.
This recognition would open the door to the supply of weapons, either directly or indirectly, via their allies in the region. The delivery of weapons would balance the war, but not guarantee a rebel triumph nor give any kind of assurance that the scale holding the opposition forces will not tip in favor of more radical Islamic groups. This is one of the big worries of the U.S. and the principal reason why it needs to take the reins.
The military path is not free from risk. It would have to be initiated without the support of China and Russia, thereby lacking the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and with doubt about the position of Egypt. On the other hand, the U.S. would have the strong backing of international public opinion, with important allies such as Turkey in the Arab and Muslim worlds and with the military cooperation of European counterparts. But, above all, only a military intervention will provide the U.S. a role in the future of Syria and put it in a position to attempt an orderly transition.
Barack Obama ha dado modestos pero inconfundibles pasos hacia la aceptación de una realidad inevitable: la guerra en Siria no tiene un final feliz, cercano ni sencillo sin mayor implicación militar de EU.
El conflicto de Siria ha alcanzado un punto en el que Obama no puede mantenerse impasible sin poner en peligro, no solo el futuro de Siria, sino la influencia de EU en la región. Washington puede verse obligado a actuar de forma más agresiva si no quiere perder el control sobre los acontecimientos en ese paÃs.
The New York Times informaba que se ha abierto un debate en la Administración sobre hasta dónde llegar en Siria, desde la entrega de armas a los rebeldes hasta la intervención militar directa. Esta última opción está, por ahora, descartada, pero es posible que vuelva a estar sobre la mesa, al menos cuando haya que considerar una fuerza de interposición para garantizar un eventual alto el fuego.
La vÃa militar no está exenta de riesgos. HabrÃa que emprenderla con la oposición de China y Rusia, sin la aprobación, por tanto, del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, y con la duda sobre la posición de Egipto. A cambio, EU contarÃa con un fuerte respaldo de la opinión pública internacional, con importantes aliados en el mundo árabe y musulmán, especialmente TurquÃa, y con la cooperación militar de sus socios europeos. Pero, sobre todo, solo una intervención militar le abre a EU un papel en el futuro de Siria y lo coloca en posición de intentar una transición ordenada.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.