You are here

America is playing into Assad’s hands

Aug 25,2014 - Last updated at Aug 25,2014

Since the start of the Syrian revolution, the American administration has failed to take the initiative and act timely.

The lead-from-behind strategy concealed the fact that US President Barack Obama was both hesitant and lacking strategy.

More often than not, Obama dismissed his critics who insisted that arming the Syrian opposition would make a difference in the war on Assad and his regime. 

The American inaction was a strong message to Iran and Russia to continue helping Bashar Assad’s regime.

Things have changed, though. For American senior officials, the beheading of American journalist James Foley is a game changer.

All of a sudden, American officials began to consider attacking the Islamic State inside Syria. Both Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey made perfectly clear that it would be hard to defeat the IS’ rampage without going after the radicals in Syria.

Not long ago, former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford heavily criticised the administration’s policy vis-à-vis Syria.

He was reported to have said: “We have been unable to address either the root causes of the conflict in terms of the fighting on the ground and the balance on the ground, and we have a growing extremism threat.”

Indeed, Ford resigned because he could no longer defend the American “behind the curve” strategy on Syria

Obama is now under pressure. After three years of avoiding Syria, it now seems that the administration cannot sit idle by while the IS’ rampage continues unchecked.

All along, Obama’s decisions have been shaped by his decision not to involve his country in armed clashes in the Middle East.

Even in the face of the growing threat in both Iraq and Syria, Obama insisted that there would be no boots on the ground.

If anything, Obama’s position and weak image emboldened the radicals.

Many Obama critics could make the case that his hesitant policy contributed in no small amount to the IS expansion.

With the execution of Foley, the American president finds himself dragged into military action in Syria.

A few days ago, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that the administration was considering attacking IS targets in Syria. The US is gathering information and intelligence on the location of IS leadership in Syria.

It is not yet clear if the US will coordinate with the Syrian regime. Both Hagel and Dempsey talked about the need to have a broad-based approach that also includes establishing a regional and international alliance to defeat the IS.

Assad must be happy to see the US struggle against IS. He probably does not mind an American strike against this radical movement in Syria.

But Assad may ask for a political concession from the American administration. He has played up the terrorism card in the past and now he seeks to reap the benefits of dragging America in the fight against IS.

Assad must know that he is pretty much loathed in the West and in the region. But his fight is not to earn love and affection. He seeks to present his regime as the lesser of the two evils and a possible ally against terrorists.

The most recent developments in Iraq changed the calculations of many players, the US included.

Although Obama has long resisted involvement in the Syrian crisis, the beheading of Foley provides a pretext for an intervention in Syria.

But the possible military intervention in Syria will not be designed to punish the Syrian regime and his troops but to cripple the IS.

Of course, this will benefit Assad’s regime and will tip the balance of forces in Syria in Assad’s favour. 

[email protected]

up
17 users have voted.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF