A strategy in disarray

A few days ago, US President Barack Obama called on his national security adviser to review the official American policy on Syria.

Explicit in Obama’s new thinking is that defeating the Islamic State (IS) entails removing embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad from power. For many American administration officials, ousting Assad has been the key pillar in the American strategy with regard to Syria.

Now, officials argue that removing Assad is a prerequisite for success in Iraq. 

If Obama is to follow up on this new thinking, it can be said that the American administration is moving away from its previous understanding of how to defeat IS.

Just a few weeks ago, various American spokespersons insisted on the strategy of confronting IS in Iraq before dealing with the Syrian regime. But it seems that things have changed since then.

Over the past week, the president’s national security adviser met four times to work out a new policy on Syria.

The frequency of these meeting indicates that the administration came to the realisation that its previous strategy had been useless. Now the argument that Assad’s removal is a necessary step for an American success in both Iraq and Syria is gaining currency.

This conclusion had been reached by key players in the Middle East long before Obama articulated it. Indeed, key states in the region had repeatedly warned that the American strategy in Syria has only played into Assad’s hands.

Due to the record of Obama’s strategy on Syria, few, if any, take his new thinking seriously. We all remember when Obama retreated from his declared warnings when his redlines in Syria were crossed by Assad’s troops. 

Therefore, many wonder why it should be different this time. Casting aside the need to remove Assad as a prerequisite for a political solution for Syria, Obama has got his priorities in the wrong order.

First, he spent almost three years watching Assad — backed by Russia, Iran and Hizbollah — butcher the Syrian people. 

Obama was often warned that allowing the Syrian crisis to continue would only generate waves of radicals. But it seems that all warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead, Obama desperately sought to cut a deal with Iran.

Lacking a proper strategy, Obama failed to place a price tag on Iran’s defiance and on its taking part in the actual strife in Syria. Had Obama pursued the objective of ousting Assad earlier on, Iran would have been much weaker. It would have found itself in a need for a deal with the West from a far weaker position.

Second, Obama placed a possible deal with Iran on the front burner. A deal with Iran, he believes, may rescue his legacy in the Middle East.

His most recent “secret” letter sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signalled that Obama is taking into account the Iranian interests in the region. The letter conveyed a message designed to convince Iran that the US poses no threat to Iran’s interests in Syria and Iraq, that it was prepared to cooperate with Iran on Syria and Iraq if Tehran would sign a nuclear deal by November 24.

Obama’s desperate quest for a deal with Iran reflects a strategy in disarray. 

The US president has yet to realise that Iran is part of the problems in Syria and Iraq, and therefore it cannot be a potential partner.

Iran has supported the sectarian militias in Iraq to the point that made Iraq dysfunctional. The rise of radicals in Iraq is due to the sectarian policies followed by pro-Iran forces there.

Besides, were it not for the support of both Iran and its proxy Hizbollah, the Syrian crisis would have been long solved.

That being said, it remains to be seen if Obama means business. 

[email protected]