The Barack Obama administration seems to have been deeply divided over whether the US should or should not provide lethal supplies to the Syrian opposition groups, fighting to bring down the regime of President Bashar Al Assad. Last summer, Obama had rejected wholeheartedly a recommendation by some of his top advisers to supply weapons to the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The proposal was made by David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA, and Hillary Clinton, the then secretary of state. Obama was joined in resisting the proposal by Joseph Biden, his Vice-President, and Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser.
The departure of two of the advocates of a more aggressive approach on Syria — Clinton and Petraeus — may mitigate the division within the Obama foreign and security policy team, but will not end it. There are still some influential officials within the administration, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, who continues to believe that the reluctance of the US to do anything to help the anti-Al Assad forces will eventually lead to undermining US influence and strengthen the more militant groups within the Syrian opposition. So far, Obama is adopting a no-action policy on Syria, hoping that the continuation of the conflict will exhaust both the Al Assad regime and his Islamist foes. Indeed, that will ultimately happen, but by then, it will be too late for the US to change course if it chooses to do so.
Division and the lack of certainty by the US foreign policy establishment at times of international crisis has historically proved to be very damaging to US national interests. It may end up — in the case of Syrian — in not only losing the hearts and minds of Syrians, something that has already occurred, but will also result in far worse consequences. It will almost certainly lead to the emergence of an anti-US regime in post-Al Assad Syria — if Syria continues to function as a state, that is.
Indeed, Syria under Al Assad was not a friend of the US, but was not a foe either. Security cooperation between the CIA and its Syrian counterparts on combating anti-US Islamists, especially in the post-September 11 attacks, is a well-known fact. Cooperation extended to other areas, such as keeping an “undeclared peace” with Israel and fighting alongside the US forces to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in 1991. The reluctance, the hesitation and the lack of action by the Obama administration to do anything meaningful to stop the brutal policies of the Syrian regime will almost certainly make post-Al Assad Syria an enemy of the US.
In 1979, US president Jimmy Carter had faced a similar situation in Iran, wherein division within his administration and the lack of decision led not only to changing the Shah regime, but also resulted in the rise of more militant groups within the Iranian opposition. It had eventually led to losing Iran and to the establishment of the Islamic republic, which Obama seems desperate today to make peace with.
The current situation in Syria is much more dangerous than it was in Iran in 1979, however. The Iranian Revolution started and ended as a domestic conflict between a tyrant and people yearning for freedom and dignity. It did not threaten to plunge the country into civil conflict or transform into armed regional confrontation.
By using deadly force to suppress the uprising from the very beginning, Al Assad has, in fact, turned peaceful demonstrators into armed militias — fighting not only to bring his regime down, but also to protect their lives, honour and properties. Furthermore, he prepared the ground for a full-fledged civil war and drawn in jihadists from all over the world to take part in a conflict that is increasingly turning sectarian. Given the heterogeneous societies of the Levant, that can develop into a grand sectarian war. Al Assad may even decide to play his final card to survive. Should he approach the end of his political life, he will not hesitate to use his chemically-loaded Scud missiles — not only against his own people, but also against regional foes such as Turkey.
Having said that, we have here a perfect prescription for chaos, destruction, death and misery — all dangerous weapons in the hands of an irresponsible leader. The lack of action by the Obama administration in this case will not only be irresponsible, but will be immoral too. If Obama thinks he is avoiding involvement in Syria, he must be grossly mistaken. Syria will come to haunt his presidency in very unpleasant ways.
Dr Marwan Kabalan is the dean of the Faculty of International Relations and Diplomacy at the University of Kalamoon, Damascus.
