Obama's Middle East Dilemma Is Now Clear
end quote from:
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-middle-east-dilemma-2014-11#ixzz3KoWaJM6Q
Obama's policy to defeat ISIL likely will succeed because of help from Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. However, his policy to remove Assad from Syria likely will fail.
Why is this?
Because if ISIL was left to run roughshod all governments in the Middle East would be gone. This way they all stay including Assad.
So, the strategy was either lose all governments in the Middle East including Israel, Iraq and Egypt or allow Assad to stay for now and to do what he is presently doing. This is reality. And makes logical sense.
To take down Assad he would have had to have a nuclear war with Putin. So, that in reality is off the table for now.
Obama's Middle East Dilemma Is Now Clear
REUTERS/Larry Downing
The Obama administration's current strategy for defeating the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) is doomed to fail, International Crisis Group Syria analyst Noah Bonsey writes in Foreign Policy.
Bonsey argues that America's Iraq-first outlook is emboldening Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and marginalizing mainstream Syrian rebel factions fighting both ISIS and the regime.
Obama recently said that the US is not actively discussing ways to remove Assad from power. The main US-backed rebel group was recently routed by al-Qaeda's Syria affiliate.
Meanwhile, ISIS is consolidating power in Sunni Arab areas in Iraq and increasingly trying to capture areas in Syria from the mainstream rebels. The US continues to bomb ISIS positions near the Turkish border.
"The crux of the American dilemma in Syria is thus clear: Degrading jihadi groups requires empowering mainstream Sunni alternatives, but doing so may prove impossible unless Damascus (or its backers in Tehran) can be convinced or compelled to dramatically shift strategy," Bonsey writes, noting that Assad facilitated the rise of ISIS.
"For now, the regime treats the Western-, Arab-, and Turkish-backed opposition as the main threat to its dominance in Syria and treats the Islamic State as a secondary concern that the United States is already helping to deal with. Iran has done nothing to suggest that it objects to the regime's strategy; instead, it is enabling it."
Reuters
Anne Barnard of The New York Times reports there is a broad sense that "President Obama’s policies on Syria and the Islamic State remain contradictory, and the longer the fight goes on without the policies being resolved, the more damage is being done to America’s standing in the region."
The Obama administration has said that empowering Sunni tribes in Iraq and the mostly-Sunni opposition in Syria is crucial to their strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS.
At the same time, as US extended nuclear talks with Iran for another seven months, Tehran continues to back Assad with men, money, and weapons against a Sunni uprising. Iran also directs brutal government-backed Shia militias in Iraq while pushing Baghdad to refrainfrom arming Sunni tribes.
"Damascus and Tehran appear to believe that achieving regime victory is simply a matter of maintaining the conflict's current trajectory. This view, however, is shortsighted and would yield an unprecedented recruiting bonanza for jihadi groups," Bonsey concludes, adding that the Obama administration must "find ways to change calculations in Damascus and Tehran."
Check out Bonsey's full argument >
SEE ALSO: Obama's Policy On Assad, In One Word
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-middle-east-dilemma-2014-11#ixzz3KoWaJM6Q
Obama's policy to defeat ISIL likely will succeed because of help from Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. However, his policy to remove Assad from Syria likely will fail.
Why is this?
Because if ISIL was left to run roughshod all governments in the Middle East would be gone. This way they all stay including Assad.
So, the strategy was either lose all governments in the Middle East including Israel, Iraq and Egypt or allow Assad to stay for now and to do what he is presently doing. This is reality. And makes logical sense.
To take down Assad he would have had to have a nuclear war with Putin. So, that in reality is off the table for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment