US’ moral failure

United States President Barack Obama’s approach with regard to the Middle East is undoubtedly controversial. 

In an article run by the Atlantic, Jeffery Goldberg refers to a set of convictions that have come to define Obama’s inaction in the Syrian conflict.

The Middle East lost its importance for the Americans and the United States could do little to make the region a better place.

For Obama, Goldberg argues, American attempts to fix all problems may drag it into unnecessary wars. 

Furthermore, the threat posed by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime to American interests is not greater than the threat posed by Daesh.

Of course, Obama’s inaction vis-à-vis the Syrian regime was not spared stinging criticism from within America as well as from allies.

Many insist that Obama’s strategy of a cautious “hands-off” approach has made America less feared. Still, the argument that American disengagement from the Middle East would precipitate its decline does not move Obama. All along, he has remained committed to his convictions.

The problem with Obama’s inaction is that the president has turned into a political analyst rather than be a decision maker.

For instance, he kept saying that “there is no military solution in Syria”, but as we can see these days, the Russian president may prove him wrong.

Since Russia’s military intervention, the balance of forces on the ground shifted remarkably, to the extent that Russia may dictate the terms of any future solution in Syria.

It is hard to point out one achievement of the Obama administration.

Despite the declaration of the truce in Syria on February 27, Russian aircraft continued their operations and Assad’s troops never stopped violating the terms of the truce.

Moreover, it is hard to believe that Russia is not buying time and that it did not adopt the strategy of talk for the sake of talk so as to continue bombing. 

Obama’s insistence on the “no military solution” is nothing but an excuse for inaction. In contrast to Obama, the Russian president genuinely believed that a political solution was not in the offing and, therefore, he is bent on deciding the matter on the battlefield.

When Obama failed to enforce his “red line” in August 2013, the rest of the world took notice. 

Not only did he let down his allies, but the pro-Assad powers — Iran and Russia in particular — also realised that they could do whatever they wanted.

Yet, until this moment, Obama says that his country will not turn a blind eye to Assad’s crimes.

Historians will debate whether Obama did the right thing. But one thing is crystal clear: the credibility of the United States is at stake.

It remains to be seen whether other countries will believe what the United States has to say.

Fortunately, the rest of the world has not tested Obama in other crises. It should not be surprising if other leaders ignite regional conflicts based on the calculation that America will not back its talk with action.

The American administration has failed morally. A superpower should not bluff when the lives of millions are at stake.

[email protected]