WarSclerotic

The View from the Other Side.

Optimistic assessments in Israel hold that the dismantling of Syria’s unconventional weapons is a great accomplishment, if it will indeed occur. The less optimistic assess that the entire US behavior displays weakness that will only encourage Iran to continue its nuclear program

Amir Rapaport

15/9/2013

It is difficult in Israel to comprehend the process in which the US intention to attack in Syria became a negotiation for an agreement that will apparently ensure the continued survival of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Discussions with Israeli decision-makers and officials held in the past two weeks in Washington and in London illuminate the situation in a clearer manner.

This is how it looks at the bottom line: US President Barack Obama genuinely intended to attack in Syria. All of the preparations and the coordination efforts with officials in Israel and in the UK were done towards such a strike. It seemed like a simple military measure, even easier than the NATO air strike that brought down Muammar Gaddafi in Libya just two years ago. However, it seems that something changed on the way from the discussions at the White House to the implementation of the aircraft carriers.

The first thing that changed was the Russian position. Russia felt deceived by the NATO alliance’s effort against Gaddafi, and decided a while back that there should be no more unilateral measures by the Western world that will change the world order. Furthermore, Russian President Vladimir Putin has considerable interest in demonstrating that he stands by protégés such as Assad – contrasting Obama, who tossed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to the dogs and who, even today, is not completely behind the Egyptian regime which is trying to rely on him.

In the two years since Gaddafi’s fall, Russia has been in the midst of a process of economic ascension and has witnessed the increase of its political influence around the world. In contrast, the US and the UK have been in a decline. US officials are not ashamed to admit that the traditional US isolationist trend has been increasing considerably – according to which events happening beyond the ocean should not be viewed as “our business.” The trauma of Iraq and Afghanistan still singes, and the political argument is paralyzing.

In the UK, last week’s headlines dealt with investigations as to the failure that dragged the British army into Iraq and Afghanistan far more than with any passion for combat against the Assad regime. The claims in favor of an operation in Syria are met with distrust.
The relations between the Israeli defense establishment and colleagues in the UK and the US are better than ever, and a certain measure of envy is noted in off-the-record discussions towards Israel, which allegedly knows how to stand behind its red lines. The US and the UK view the global media reports that Israel attacked in Syria at least four times since the start of 2013  – in order to destroy deliveries of weapons with strategic significance – as an absolute fact.

In this reality, the debate on the Syrian attack has been held thus far among the public opinion, primarily in the US. Obama repeatedly attacked again and again, but so did Putin, who even wrote a special article for the New York Times in the last weekend, as well as Assad, who provided a rare televised appearance.

In light of all this, the agreement being discussed in the recent days is the best way out for all of the involved parties.

It is greatly beneficial for Russia: it establishes its status as a superpower that almost equals the US. From now on, it is assured that no international effort in Syria will take place without Russia’s approval. The arrangement also prevents the possibility that the US will nevertheless attack in Syria, thus making fun of the defense systems that Russia already provided to Syria – systems that Israel allegedly bypassed without any difficulty, according to reports.

Barack Obama can also be satisfied with the agreement. On one hand, he avoided a complication and refrained from going against public opinion. On the other hand, he has already claimed that the tangible threat of an attack will bring about the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons, in the agreement.

The assessments in Israel, on the eve of Yom Kippur, were that the dismantling of Syria’s unconventional weapons is a great accomplishment, if it actually occurs. The optimistic view is that the genuine threat of an attack can provide results, and may yield results in the future with regards to Iran.

The less optimistic are assessing that the US behavior projects weakness that will only encourage Iran in continuing its nuclear program, out of an assumption that the US will always find the reason not to attack. The assessments are also fairly pessimistic with regards to Syria’s future. Bashar al-Assad only controls 40% of Syria today, and the assessments are that the animosity between various factions in Syria is vast. Therefore, the civil war will continue to be waged there in one form or another, even if the agreement to dismantle the chemical weapons will enter into effect.

This entry was posted on September 17, 2013 at 8:31 AM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.