WarSclerotic

Kerry: We have proof sarin used in chemical attack | The Times of Israel.

( Poor Kerry.  Having to defend Obama’s cringing retreat with, “He is not trying to create an imperial presidency” Wow… – JW )

Top US diplomat lays out case for action against Syria on TV morning talk shows, says Congress will green-light use of force

US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks at the State Department in Washington, Monday, August 26, 2013, about the situation in Syria (photo credit: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The United States now has evidence of sarin gas use in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday, adding that the “case is building” for a military attack.

A day after President Barack Obama stepped back from his threat to launch an attack, Kerry said in a series of interviews on the Sunday television news shows that the administration learned of the sarin use through samples of hair and blood provided to Washington by first responders in Damascus.

“This case is going to build stronger and stronger,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” But he also said he thinks “the people of America should be celebrating that the president is not acting unilaterally.”

He added that federal officials had used hair and blood samples provided by first responders to determine the nature of the attack, which killed hundreds. He said the information only came to his attention in the last 24 hours.

Kerry said he was confident that Congress would give Obama its backing for a military strike against Syria. But the former senator also says the president has authority to act on his own if Congress doesn’t give its approval.

“The case hasn’t changed and the case doesn’t change at all. The rationale for a military response is as powerful today” as it has been, Kerry said.

Kerry maintained there is no weakness in the US case underscoring Obama’s about-face, saying instead that “the president believes that we are all stronger as a nation when we act together.”

The secretary said that Assad “has now joined the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein” in deploying chemical weapons against his population and that “the case remains the same” for a US response. Kerry echoed Obama in saying the world cannot stand by and watch Assad use chemical weapons.

Asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” if the US obtained its new information from UN weapons inspectors who had visited Syria, Kerry responded, “No, it is independent. … But it is confirmation of the signatures of sarin.”

“In the last 24 hours,” he said, “we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States, that have now been tested, from first responders in east Damascus, and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin.”

He was asked repeatedly what Obama would do in the event that Congress refuses to give its consent, Kerry said, “The president has taken his decision.”

“I think this is a smart decision by the president. … He is not trying to create an imperial presidency,” Kerry added. “I believe that in the end, Congress will do what is right,” Kerry told “Fox News Sunday.”

Administration officials have said that Obama appeared set on ordering a strike until Friday evening. After a long walk in near 90-degree temperatures around the White House grounds with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the president told his aide he had changed his mind.

These officials said Saturday that Obama initially drew pushback in a two-hour session attended by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Klapper, CIA Director John Brennan, national security adviser Susan Rice and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco. They declined to say which of the participants had argued against Obama’s proposal.

Congress is scheduled to return from a summer break on September 9 to discuss the issue.

On Friday, Kerry delivered an impassioned plea for action against Syria, saying that the world was watching how Washington responded to the alleged gassing of civilians outside Damascus on August 21.

He said over 1,400 people had been killed in the attack, though opposition groups cite lower numbers.

White House to Congress: Help protect Israel – POLITICO.com Print View.

The Obama administration is using a time-tested pitch to get Congress to back military strikes in Syria: It will help protect Israel.

Israel’s enemies, including Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah, could be emboldened if Congress fails to approve action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, senior administration officials said Saturday.

And for the second day in a row, President Barack Obama publicly cited the threat against Israel if Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons goes unchecked. “It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq,” Obama said Saturday in the Rose Garden. “It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”

The White House will need every vote it can get on the Syria resolution, and the senior administration officials left little doubt that Israel would be a point of emphasis in private discussions with members of Congress.

The Capitol is filled with strong supporters of Israel who understand the argument, one of the officials said.

But Israel’s security is a political razor blade that could cut both ways.

As Obama has weighed potential military action, the politics of Israel’s interests have become more delicate. The prospect of strikes against Syria triggering reprisals from Iran and Hezbollah is real enough to bolster the case against authorizing the president to use force, too, congressional insiders say.

“You’re going to see people arguing the exact opposite” of Obama, said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, who has spent time in the region. An Israel play “could really backfire.”

Even a persuasive case that Israel’s security depends on American intervention in Syria might not be enough to overcome what Capitol Hill sources say is significant opposition to the president’s proposal for using military force against Assad.

Washington’s pro-Israel lobby, typically highly critical of the Syrian regime, has been publicly silent in recent days, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked officials in his government not to speak about possible American intervention in Syria.

“Everyone is in a wait-and-see mode about where this is all leading,” former Israeli Deputy Ambassador to the United States Dan Arbel told POLITICO earlier this week. “The fact is, right now, the picture is not so clear.”

Indeed, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, wrote on its website Thursday that the Syrian crisis underscored the need to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, delicately sidestepping the question of whether Obama should strike Assad.

The administration’s case that intervening benefits Israel will turn on what lawmakers hear from pro-Israel groups in their communities and from the reactions of leading Jewish lawmakers, said a senior House Democratic aide.

The Israel angle “only has a major impact if it’s getting validated from others,” the aide said. “Doesn’t have to be AIPAC writ large, but the local AIPAC lay leaders that the members have personal relationships [with] need to be validating.”

House leaders are likely to use prominent Jewish members who are hawkish on Israel as a bellwether. That group includes Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.). Engel announced on Friday that the administration had convinced him it was appropriate to make punitive strikes against Assad, though he had been pretty clearly in the camp favoring action before that.

“We cannot stand idly by,” Engel said on NBC’s “Today” show. “If we stand idly by, then every despot in the world thinks they can commit war crimes and no one will do anything.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leader in the progressive caucus who is Jewish, released a statement Saturday night praising Obama for seeking congressional approval for the use of force in Syria. But she stopped short of endorsing his authorization measure.

“We need to determine the best way to respond to the heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria and how we can act effectively to protect civilians from further massacres,” she said.

The true test, congressional sources said, may have much less to do with the politics of Israel than district-by-district domestic politics for lawmakers who are both weary and wary of war.

“At this point, it seems to be fairly far-fetched that there would be even close to enough votes to authorize,” said Nunes, who opposes the use-of-force resolution because he believes Obama has not articulated a clear military objective.

Or, as the Democratic aide put it, “Members are going to get the s—- kicked out of them at home this week. This is going to be a really hard vote for people.

American hesitancy on Syria meets Arab criticism | The Times of Israel.

‘Why won’t Obama tell Assad how long the attack will last so he can book his vacation after it?’ asks one sarcastic columnist

A Syrian immigrant who lives in Bulgaria observes a minute of silence during a demonstration in front of the European Commission Representation office in Sofia, Bulgaria, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Valentina Petrova)

An American decision to postpone its strike on Syria until Congress approves it leads the news in Arab dailies Sunday.

“Syrian strike awaits a vote from Congress,” reads the headline of Saudi-owned daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, featuring an image of President Barack Obama standing next to his deputy Joe Biden and explaining the administration’s decision on Syria at the White House.

“US President Barack Obama threw the ‘ball’ of an American attack in Syria into the court of Congress, asking the latter to vote on any military action, despite his assurance that he maintains the authority to carry out a strike,” reads the article.

Qatari news channel Al-Jazeera points to an apparent inconsistency in Russia’s policy on Syria. While President Vladimir Putin called the accusations against the Syrian regime “pure nonsense,” Russia nevertheless decided to postpone an arms deal with Syria, which “raises questions regarding a Russian contradiction in supporting Syria between the political level and battles on the ground.”

Meanwhile, London-based daily Al-Hayat reports that Putin is trying to convince Obama to postpone the strike on Syria.

“Moscow has thrown its entire weight yesterday behind an attempt to thwart a possible military strike against the Syrian regime outside the framework of the Security Council. President Vladimir Putin entered the fray, calling on Washington to expose its ‘secret’ evidence and claiming that failure to do so means it’s nonexistent,” writes the daily’s correspondent in Moscow.

“It seemed as though developments within the ‘Western camp’ have increased Moscow’s appetite to place more pressure on its allies in a bid to curb the tendency to strike before international investigations are completed and discussed at the Security Council,” reads the article.

Columnists in mainstream Arab media are critical of the hesitancy of the American administration towards Syria, and many express cynicism at the inaction.

“Obama continues to try and understate the strike against the Assad forces, saying it is limited, measured and quick. He further claims it is not a war and not intended to topple the regime. The only thing left for him is to inform Bashar of the coordinates of the sites being targeted so that he can vacate them and of the length of the attack so that Bashar and Maher and the other pillars of the regime can take their summer vacation as soon as it ends!” writes A-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Mushari Al-Thaidy.

“Obama is wading in water he hates wading in. The worst news his men informed him of was the news that Assad’s forces used banned chemical weapons. By doing so, the Assad forces will have stepped on Obama’s ‘red line,’ leaving Obama no choice but to prove the seriousness of the American warning,” he continued.

“Relax, it’s a ‘limited’ strike,” reads the headline of an op-ed by Elias Harfoush in Al-Hayat, claiming that an American attack in Syria is inevitable, even if long overdue.

“Obama didn’t wish for a predicament like this. He avoided it until the moment when avoiding it would mean a defeat for America itself, unparalleled by any defeat but the one America may face in the actual war,” writes Harfoush.

“Obama sat in his oval office for two and a half years, counting the tens of thousands of Syrian victims… What has the US president done in this period? Nothing! Until last August with a slip of the tongue he made the ‘mistake’ of warning Bashar Assad against crossing the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons against his people.”

“The Syrian regime could only understand this as a message of truce by Obama, implying: ‘kill as many of them as you like, and in numbers that will not plague your conscience. Use only weapons that will not embarrass me in the eyes of the world, showing me as a weak leader of a strong United States.”

Al-Jazeera’s new America channel irks ‘Israelis’ and ‘Jews’

Al-Jazeera dedicates an article on its website to Israeli and “Jewish” reactions to the recent launch of the new channel “Al-Jazeera America.”

In the article, titled “Israeli researches open fire on ‘Al-Jazeera America,’ reporter Salah Al-Naami in Gaza reviews three editorials in Israeli newspapers and news websites critical of the new channel and considering it “a service to Islamic extremism.”

US intel knew Assad regime was preparing chemical attack 3 days in advance | The Times of Israel.

( They knew and yet did nothing.  Not even a goddamned press release.  Echos of the trains to Auschwitz… – JW )

Administration releases document underlining Kerry’s speech accusing Syrian president of crime against humanity in killing 1,429 people

Bodies being buried after last week’s chemical attack near Damascus (photo credit: AP/Shaam News Network)

WASHINGTON — American intelligence had evidence that preparations were underway for a chemical weapons attack as early as three days before the strike that targeted Damascus suburbs, killing 1,429 last Wednesday, senior administration officials revealed on Friday.

Speaking as a US intelligence report about the August 21 attack was released to the public, the officials said the death toll included 426 children, and noted that the numbers were likely to rise. The anxiously awaited report was based on human, signals, geospatial and open source intelligence, and officials said that they had “high confidence” that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the slaughter.

The document, cited by Secretary of State John Kerry in his Friday speech accusing Assad of committing a crime against humanity, points to a chain of command stretching from Assad as a decision-maker to the chemical weapons units believed to have launched the assault. The chemical weapons program in Syria, intelligence officials said, was “tightly commanded and tightly controlled,” implying that the odds that, as some claim, opposition members could have launched the attack were slim.

An administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the report detailed Assad’s motivation in launching the attack on the 12 locations targeted last week. The regime had been focused on those neighborhoods and wanted to clear the area of opposition fighters. The US official said that pro-regime forces had exhausted their conventional options, and he emphasized that “the regime considers chemical weapons in its portfolio of military use. They do not see it as an extreme measure for extreme cases.”

US officials acknowledged that they had been surprised by the large and “indiscriminate” scale of last week’s attack, but said that they had signals and human intelligence as early as the Sunday before the assault. In contradiction to reports in recent days, another official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that there was “no indication” that the scale or targets of the attack were a mistake.

The official also said that throughout the course of the past year, the United States had responded to earlier attempts of chemical weapons use with diplomatic action, including direct lines of communications with the Syrian government. He did not, however, say whether in this instance the administration had tried to intervene to stop the large-scale attack last week.

The administration claimed that the intelligence intercepted pointed a clear finger at the Assad regime’s direct responsibility for the attacks – and said that it had even discovered that gas masks were distributed to pro-regime assets in advance of the assault.

Following the assault, signals interceptions had documented Syrian officials speaking about the attack, ordering the chemical weapons units to stand down, and expressing concern about a United Nations response to the incident.

The two senior officials who spoke with the press — as well as Kerry — emphasized Friday that the administration viewed Congress as a “partner” and an “ally,” and said that they were sharing classified intelligence with legislators.

Shortly after the report was released, US President Barack Obama commented on the Syria conflict, acknowledging that the US is increasingly isolated in its attempts to assemble a coalition for action against Assad. “A lot of people think something should be done but nobody wants to do it,” the president told reporters in the midst of a meeting with Baltic heads of state.

“There is a certain weariness, given Afghanistan. There is a certain suspicion of any military action post-Iraq. And I very much appreciate that. It’s important for us to recognize that when over a thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal… That is a danger to our national security.”

The president assured critics that whatever the US does, it would not be a “major operation.”

He too responded to the complaint that the administration was not appropriately consulting with Congress, saying that “we are confident that we can provide Congress all the information and get all the input they need. We’re very mindful of that… but ultimately we don’t want the world to be paralyzed.”

A recent poll conducted by NBC television news indicated that nearly four out of five Americans believe that Obama should not just consult Congress, but receive congressional approval before any use of force in Syria. The same poll indicated that Americans are evenly divided as to whether the US should intervene at all in the deadly conflict.

‘Don’t Try Us’ – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

( Complete the sentence:  “Don’t try us, we’re not Obama’s America…” – JW )

Netanyahu, flanked by Chief of staff Benny Ganz (r) and Dfense Minister Ya’alon

Flash 90

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared Sunday that the Jewish state was prepared for “every possible scenario” in neighboring Syria after US President Barack Obama postponed a threatened missile strike.

“Israel is calm and sure of itself, the citizens of Israel know that we are prepared for every possible scenario,” he told ministers at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, in remarks broadcast on public radio.   

Obama had promised to act against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons, but on Saturday announced that he would first seek endorsement from Congress, effectively pushing any military action back until at least September 9, when US lawmakers return from their summer recess.

The US administration’s perceived weakness and uncertainty has been watched keenly in the Middle East by friend and foe alike, splitting Arab opinion and provoking ridicule from the Syrian regime and its allies.

Israeli right-wing MKs have also responded strongly to Obama’s uncertainty, publicly questioning America’s willingness to back the Jewish state in a time of crisis.

Among them was Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) MK and Deputy Education Minister Avi Wortzman.

“The hesitation and hypocrisy of America and the rest of the ‘free world’ confirms the suspicion that when it comes to maintaining the security of the state of Israel, we cannot rely on others and their promises, but we must be prepared to protect and secure ourselves,” he declared.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sought to calm domestic fears that a US-led attack on Syria could prompt Assad or his Lebanese allies Hezbollah to retaliate against neighboring Israel, regarded as Washington’s key ally in the region.

“Our enemies have very good reasons not to try our strength, not to test our power,” he said. “They know why.”

Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres have both insisted that Israel is not involved in the bloody conflict in Syria, in which over 100,000 people have been killed, but will respond if attacked.

Neither Netanyahu nor his senior cabinet colleagues referred directly to Obama’s surprise announcement, but Bayit Yehudi MK and Housing Minister Uri Ariel had advice for Washington regarding Assad.

“This is a murdering coward,” he told army radio. “Take care of him.”

Criticism of Obama’s slow response to the Syrian regime’s gas attacks against civilians did not come exclusively from the political right.

“Where was the United States when more than 100,000 people, for more than two and a half years, were killed in attacks using conventional weapons? Do they care which weapons were used to kill them?” asked the left-leaning Haaretz in an editorial.

“Senior Israeli officials said they believed that no matter how things developed going forward, the Americans had already lost their momentum, and any attack that would now be staged now would not be effective,” according to Yediot Aharonot.

“Assad is sitting and rubbing his hands together gleefully, and the Iranians are laughing their way to the nuclear bomb.”

Israel, which has the Middle East’s sole, albeit undeclared, nuclear arsenal, regards key Damascus ally Iran as its deadly foe.

Along with the West, Israel suspects the Islamic republic of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of its nuclear programme, a claim Tehran denies.

Obama’s credibility on line in reversal | The Times of Israel.

Stunning change-of-heart raises questions about the president’s decisiveness and could embolden leaders in Syria, Iran, North Korea

President Barack Obama delivers remarks about the crisis in Syria in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013. (photo credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON (AP) — For more than a week, the White House had been barreling toward imminent military action against Syria. But President Barack Obama’s abrupt decision to instead ask Congress for permission left him with a high-risk gamble that could devastate his credibility if no action is ultimately taken in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that crossed his own “red line.”

The stunning reversal also raises questions about the president’s decisiveness and could embolden leaders in Syria, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, leaving them with the impression of a US president unwilling to back up his words with actions.

The president, in a hastily announced statement Saturday in the White House Rose Garden, argued that he did in fact have the power to act on his own. But faced with the prospect of taking action opposed by many Americans, the commander in chief tried to shift the burden and instead round up partners in Congress to share in that responsibility.

“While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective,” Obama said. “We should have this debate.”

The consequences for Obama’s turnabout could be sweeping, both at home and abroad. If Congress votes against military action, it would mark a humiliating defeat for a second-term president already fighting to stay relevant and wield influence in Washington. It could also weaken his standing internationally at a time when there are already growing questions about the scope of American influence, particularly in the Arab world.

But the White House sees potentially positive political implications in punting the strike decision to Congress. Obama could make good on the promises he made as a senator and presidential candidate, when he called for restraint and congressional consultation by White House’s seeking military force. And with the American public weary of war and many opposed to even modest military action against Syria, Obama could share with Congress the burden of launching an attack.

An NBC News poll conducted last week suggests the use of chemical weapons has not shifted public opinion in favor of taking military action against Syria. About 50 percent said the US should not take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons, while 42 percent said the US should. Just 21 percent say military action against Syria is in the US national interest.

Obama’s advisers wouldn’t say what the president will do if Congress does not approve military action. If he presses on with military action despite their opposition, he would likely cast Congress as obstructionists allowing an autocrat to kill civilians without consequences.

“Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” Obama asked Saturday.

It’s unclear how effective that approach would be given that Obama himself has been deeply reluctant to get involved in Syria’s lengthy civil war. More than 100,000 people have died in more than two years of clashes between the government and rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad. But Obama declared last year that the one thing that would cross his “red line” would be if Assad deployed his stockpiles of chemical weapons.

US officials say that has now happened multiple times this year, most recently on August 21 in the Damascus suburbs. According to the Obama administration, more than 1,400 people were killed by the deadly gases, including 426 children.

For Obama, the stakes for responding after the most recent attack were already heightened, not only because of the scope, but also because of the scant response from the White House when Assad used chemical weapons earlier this year. While Obama approved shipments of light weaponry and ammunition for the rebel forces fighting Assad, the bulk of the arms are yet to arrive.

Throughout much of the last week, it appeared Obama was ready to make good on his promises to act in the face of chemical weapons use. Five Navy destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles were put on standby in the Mediterranean Sea. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declared that the military was “ready to go” once Obama gave the order. And the president dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry twice last week to make a vigorous and emotional case for a robust response to a reluctant public.

As the week dragged on, Obama’s international backing began to erode. Russia again opposed action against Syria, this time during private discussions between the five permanent UN Security Council members. NATO declared that the alliance would not launch coordinated military action. And in the strongest blow for the White House, Britain’s Parliament voted against military action, a stunning defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron, a key ally who had expected to join Obama in taking military action.

Despite the setbacks, Obama and his team were prepared to move forward without any authorization from the UN and Congress. But on Friday, aides said the president simply changed his mind. After a long walk around the White House’s grounds with his chief of staff, Obama summoned some of his top aides and told them he now wanted to hold off on launching an attack until Congress had its say.

The decision ensures that a military strike will be pushed off for at least another week. Lawmakers aren’t due back from their summer recess until September 9. House Speaker John Boehner said he expected the House to consider the force resolution that week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he, too, will hold a vote no later than the week of September 9, with public hearings beginning next week.

Even before Congress decides, Obama will have to directly confront the international implications of his decision. He’s set to travel abroad next week for a visit to Sweden and a meeting of world leaders in St. Petersburg, Russia.

There, he’ll come face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of Assad’s strongest supporters. Putin, in a pointed jab, made a plaintive plea for Obama to take more time to consider the full implications of a strike on Syria, appealing, he said, not to another world leader, but to a Nobel Peace laureate.

By HERB KEINON

09/01/2013 12:51

Without directly mentioning Syria or Obama’s announcement on military action, PM says Israel’s citizens ‘know very well that we are prepared for any possible scenario.’

In his first public comments since US President Barack Obama announced Saturday he was seeking Congressional approval for a limited strike on Syria, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sought Sunday to illustrate Israel’s sangfroid.

“Israel is calm and confident in itself,” Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting. “The citizens of Israel know very well that we are prepared for any possible scenario,” he said, without mentioning Syria or referring directly to Obama’s statement.

“Israel’s citizens also need to know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our strength – and they know why,” he added.

Related:

The Obama Doctrine: Right is might

Weak world response on Syria boosts chance of strong Israeli action on Iran

Over the last week, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz have repeatedly said that Israel was not involved in the Syrian civil war, but would respond “fiercely” if attacked.

Israeli leaders have remained completely quiet on how they thought the US or the west should respond to Syrian President Basher Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people.

via As Obama stalls on Syria, Netanyahu says Israel is ‘calm and confident in itself’ | JPost | Israel News.

Prof. Alexander Bligh

Did U.S. President Barack Obama really decide to indefinitely postpone the attack on Syria, citing the legality of the decision, or was this a clever disinformation maneuver meant to ensure that the American strike will be as effective as possible?

If, as it appears, he simply delayed the action to an undefined later date, then Obama’s speech may have been the Nobel Peace Prize laureate’s last attempt to preserve his clean reputation as a promoter of peace while simultaneously communicating to the world that his country is still the leader of the free world in values and international conduct.

Handing off the decision to Congress, justifying the move by saying that the U.S. is a democratic nation, is nearly without precedent since World War II. When it comes to all the major wars in which the U.S. has been involved in over the last hundred years, the decision to strike was made exclusively by the president. Waiting for congressional confirmation essentially means avoiding striking while the iron is hot and generally ignoring the possible strategic changes in the immediate future, which could prevent an American assault for a variety of reasons.

Beside the strategic ramifications, this is also a serious blow to U.S. leadership in the existing international order. The American president is now poised to attend the G-20 summit in Saint Petersburg next week, as someone who backtracked at the last minute for reasons not entirely clear to parts of the international community.

Three completely different audiences listened closely to Obama’s speech on Saturday: Syria and its leaders; Russia and China; and the U.S. allies in the Middle East, with Israel at the forefront, but also Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Syria’s leaders have every reason to feel that they have won a reprieve (after all, the British have also backed down from supporting a military strike), enabling them to freely use any type of weapon at their disposal until the event of an American strike, if one should ever occur.

Setting aside the possibility that this is a case of strategic disinformation, Obama’s decision constitutes a retreat into the type of isolationism that the U.S. has not seen since the 1920s. Clearly, Russia will be the big winner in this scenario: Over the last week, Russian leaders have warned Obama in various ways against staging an attack on Syria. Obama’s decision to back down undermines the U.S.’s credibility and power of deterrence in the international arena while boosting the credibility of Russian threats. One possible outcome could be a deepening of the Syrian-Russia alliance, and the spreading of Russian temptations around the new Middle East regimes. China, whose presence in our region has been minimal, could also feel that its partnership with Russia served to underscore the Russian threats and cemented its own standing in the Middle East.

On the other hand, the big losers are the governments associated with the U.S. and its declining regional status. Israel, first and foremost, must now stand guard when it comes to foreign policy and security. To what degree, for example, will the U.S. back Israel if a peace deal is reached with the Palestinians and they breach it? Judging from the current situation, the U.S. will most likely issue some weak diplomatic protest, but refrain from really stepping in to support Israel, even if it is one of the signatories of the agreement in question.

Keep in mind that the U.S. recently threatened to discontinue its aid to Egypt over the military coup there, thus sabotaging one of the main pillars that hold up Israel’s peace agreement with Egypt. Such a threat, which means a potential violation of the agreement, and the steps (or lack thereof) against Syria, alongside the isolationist policy, raise serious doubts regarding the logic of making any kind of concessions to the Palestinians — certainly territorial concessions. The leaders of Jordan, a moderate, peace-seeking country threatened by Syria, are most likely also very worried by Obama’s decision. Will he take action against Syria if the latter strikes Jordan in “retaliation for their support of the rebels?” Turkey, for its part, shares these concerns, and more.

The absence of a military strike immediately following the clear violation of international law (use of chemical weapons) hurts, and will continue to harm the U.S.’s standing in the international arena. One should hope that if the U.S. does attack Syria, it will do so sooner rather than later, when it may well be too late.

Alexander Bligh is the director of the Middle East Research Center at Ariel University.

via Israel Hayom | Striking while the iron is cold.

Zvika Fogol

With so many analyses, predictions and statements made on the U.S. strike on Syria over the past few days, for a moment it felt like we became the 51st star on the American flag. The Tomahawk and stealth jet have become as integral a part of the Hebrew dictionary as the catcher’s mitt is to baseball. Turns out sometimes it is not so bad watching others impose justice in our region, even if some say Israel took part in the U.S.’s intelligence gathering and decision-making. We have grown accustomed to being responsible, according to foreign reports, for numerous impressive covert operations. In this not-so-covert instance, our focus is on the aftermath of a U.S. strike on Syria.

It would be correct to assume — and maybe this is what is happening right now — that the world’s sheriff cannot make a promise it cannot keep. The U.S. attack will likely be before, during, or after the ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. The Iranian, Syrian and terrorist response, if there is one, has kept many in Israel’s defense establishment working late into the night.

Credit should be given where it is due, and the government and defense branches deserve it for how they have handled things so far: responsibly, without over excitement or inducing panic. They have prepared for the worst case scenario in an understated, professional manner. I have no doubt that the American military intervention that may take place on our borders will forge a different tomorrow for us.

As someone who is very familiar with the Israel Defense Forces during times of high alert like these, I have no doubt that all branches are ready and prepared to defend, respond and take the initiative as necessary. Iron Dome and the other missile intercepting systems have been deployed, the Homefront Command has already made all the necessary preparations to treat the population, and our offensive forces — the pilots, artillerymen, infantry and armored corps — are ready to carry out any mission on our border or farther way to protect our way of life. Our ability to make the correct diplomatic decisions, combined with our military and intelligence gathering capabilities gives us reason to be optimistic. If those who wish us harm could see our determination and readiness, they would not be so eager to embark on a dangerous adventure they will not know how to get out of.

As we prepare to sit down at the dinner table for the High Holidays, 40 years after the Yom Kippur War and on the backdrop of the Egyptian coup, terrorist groups conspiring around us and peace talks with the Palestinians, we can take solace in our existence as an island of rationality, determination and readiness in such a volatile region.

via Israel Hayom | We can only rely on ourselves.

Yoav Limor

During U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech Saturday night, senior Israel Defense Forces officers were at a situation assessment meeting at army headquarters in Tel Aviv. Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and many senior officers spent most of Friday and Saturday in intense discussions and visiting various units — on the Golan Heights, Air Force squadrons, Arrow and Iron Dome batteries and intelligence bases — to make sure that all were alert and ready for the decisive moment.

Several of the officers believed that an American attack would begin Saturday night, others believed it would happen a day later, but upon hearing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s aggressive speech two days ago (and after receiving clear messages from the Americans over the past few days), not one of them had any doubt that an attack would come soon.

As the cliché goes — the greater the expectations, the bigger the disappointment.

As the dust began to settle somewhat, the questions began popping up. Some were trivial: Will there eventually be an actual attack and what will it look like, and what if Congress doesn’t give the green light? What will happen until such an attack, in Syria and in the international arena, and will Obama succeed in building a significant coalition that can support him in a military campaign, or will his detractors manage to foil those efforts?

Then there are the more disconcerting questions: If the proven use of chemical weapons (for the 14th time in less than half a year) has not prodded the world into taking action, what will? And if Obama needs to beg for approval from Congress for a minor attack, what will happen if he wants to attack, let’s say, Iran’s nuclear facilities?

The most painful question of all is: If, heaven forbid, we in Israel were to be attacked with chemical weapons by Syria or another enemy, can we really be sure that the United States will stand by our side, or by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which have also received American pledges of eternal loyalty?

All these questions must now be faced by America, which in one weekend was the most moral and determined nation in the world (John Kerry), and also the most wavering (Obama). Officially, Israel will surely refrain from openly criticizing the administration in Washington, so as to avoid being perceived as interfering in domestic U.S. matters and politics, but last night it was hard to miss the cynicism over Obama’s assertion that targets in Syria would remain viable, certainly when the stated goal of any attack is to punish the Syrian regime but not topple it.

Until Washington decides, meanwhile, Israel will need to focus on maintaining deterrence. The concern now is that Syria, or other elements on its behalf, will try to create a provocation to redirect attention elsewhere. We can expect the IDF to stay on high alert along all fronts, likely throughout the Rosh Hashana holiday and beyond.

via Israel Hayom | Great expectations, greater disappointment.