Russia would not have launched its military intervention to prop up the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad last year were it not for the American tacit complicity. At the time, the American administration saw Daesh rather than Assad as the imminent threat that should be wiped out.
Paradoxically, despite the then American argument that Assad served as the magnet for terrorists, Obama’s inaction was perplexing.
All hopes that the Russian assertive foreign policy in Syria would backfire did not materialize. Obama’s prediction that Russia would get “stuck in a quagmire” was premature.
On the contrary, Russia has helped reverse the tide of the war and as a consequence Assad was reborn anew.
Rather than fighting Daesh, the Russian airstrikes have mainly targeted the moderate rebels in order to force the world to choose between Assad or terrorists. It seems that Assad will not go unless Putin wants that to happen!
And yet, it is as if Russia can get what it seeks easily. Even after a year of intensive military intervention, the Russian forces, though no boots on the ground, has yet to secure a final victory.
Not only has Russia used all kind of its planes in its arsenal to pound the rebels, it has also worked closely with the American administration to figure out a working political solution to the crisis. However, it seems that Russia has used the diplomatic venue to buy time to finish off the rebels. The most recent truce did not hold and now it is in disarray.
Over the last week, the differences between the US and Russia became more obvious.
The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power lambasted Russia for having convened the UN Security Council to discuss the American bombing of Syrian troops. She accused Russia of protecting the Syrian regime irrespective of any consequences.
Having said that, it seems that America is without teeth in Syria. Worse, Obama can say whatever he wants while Putin can do whatever he wants in Syria. Specifically, there is hardly a price tag on what Putin, Assad, and the Iranians are doing in Syria.
If anything, Obama’s approach to Syria suffers from the contradiction of two issues. First, the American security interests in Syria are not threatened. For this reason, Obama has opted, from the get-go, for inaction. For Obama, the issue of the survival of Assad as a quid pro quo for the continuation of the civil war was placed on the back burner. Meanwhile, the Obama administration did little to prop up the rebels, who have been facing a coalition of Assad forces, Russian troops, Iranian soldiers and Hezbollah.
Second, the moral imperative to protect civilians is another issue that the American administration claims to be top priority of its policy toward Syria.
When a regime slaughtered its people, the sovereignty of the country should not prevent the international community from intervening.
Until this moment, no one is willing to step in and put an end to the ongoing genocide and all kinds of atrocities befalling the Syrian people. Obama has failed to strike a balance between the imperative of not getting involved in Syria on the one hand and preventing Assad and his cronies from continuing to murder the Syrian people.
While Obama is desperate for any agreement with the Putin on Syria to save a legacy, the later is not in a hurry.
Therefore, the crisis is most likely to outlive the few months left in Obama’s presidency. Seen in this way, historians will look back at what took place during this crisis and may conclude that Obama’s legacy in Syria is nothing but bleak!
