Let it be vs. ain’t gonna happen
Israel Hayom | Let it be vs. ain’t gonna happen.
Dan Margalit
As Yom Kippur drew to a close on Saturday evening, practically everyone began humming the famous Naomi Shemer song “Lu Yehi” (literally, “Let it Be”), the unofficial song of the Yom Kippur War.
The holiday coincided with the Russian-American deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapon arsenal. Now would be a good time to translate “Lu Yehi” into English. Perhaps even into Arabic and Russian.
Syrian President Bashar Assad will provide an inventory of the chemical weapons he has? Let it be. Assad will submit a map detailing the roughly 50 sites in which he had the chemical weapons spread? Let it be.
The U.N. inspectors will arrive in Syria in November (why not this week?) to collect all the chemical weapons there and by June 2014 they will destroy the production facilities where Assad and his cronies manufacture them? Let it be.
Let it be? Ain’t gonna happen.
There are the perennial optimists and the perpetual pessimists. If I had to choose a camp, I would, for now, park my support with those who focus on the second half of “trust but verify.” But of course, I do have a wish deep inside — let it be.
The preliminary lessons have already been drawn in Washington. Had there not been the threat of military force against one of its client states, Russia would have backed out of the deal, even though it knows full-well that the deal is nothing more than a smokescreen to distract the West. Those who prefer to hold fire must once and for all accept the fact that a credible threat involving the use of military force is a prerequisite for meeting one’s goal.
But what if the deal turns out to be worth less than the two pages it was written on? If Syria were to violate it, the U.N. Security Council would convene, but Russia and China have said they would not endorse punitive steps against Assad. The U.S. is trying to have the deal portrayed as a success and to leverage it so that a Security Council meeting would serve as a foolproof measure against any breach on the part of Damascus. This is all very murky; a gray area. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive in Jerusalem on Sunday to brief Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the agreement. He should thank Netanyahu for being at President Barack Obama’s side when the latter was in dire straits on Capitol Hill. Obama owes him one. Whether Obama is the kind of guy who pays down his debt is unclear.
If the “let it be” rather than the “ain’t gonna happen” scenario materializes, Israel’s strategic situation would drastically improve. The axis of evil, which runs from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut, abetted by Moscow’s tailwind, will have been weakened. That said, over in Syria, the slaughter would continue. Obviously the rebels are disappointed. They hoped Obama would topple the Assad regime. But Obama has essentially come to terms with Assad staying in power and fighting for his political and personal survival. This is the currency Obama paid with to get this deal.
Once implemented, the deal would strip Assad of his strategic weaponry. But for the time being, it grants him an opportunity to bolster his position and stay in power. This deal might demoralize the rebels, reduce their numbers and weaken them. That said, if the agreement beats this pessimistic outlook, it would merit praise.
Leave a comment