Over the past two years, civil war has ravaged Syria. There has been over 100,000 deaths reported by the UN and extensive economic devastation that will leave Syria in shambles for decades to come. It is difficult to foresee any calm emerging from this bloody storm – and the violence has only been escalating. On August 21, the Assad regime reportedly used chemical weapons to murder thousands of civilians, violating the international norms condemning the use of biological and chemical weapons. President Obama has threatened a limited military strike in retaliation against this inhumane act of war. The precedent set by America’s response to the deployment of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Obama’s so-called “red line,” could have vast ramifications.
If we can concede that the further contribution of bloodshed is short of a legitimate humanitarian pretense for involvement, the only valid argument in support of an American military operation is to uphold Obama’s political credibility. America’s “reputation” is hardly justification for the deaths of even more Syrians – after all, no one with a brain or a newspaper will expect consistency in American foreign policy on war crimes. Unfortunately, the morally troubling reality of America’s strategic interest is to allow this bloody “war of attrition” to play out between Assad’s regime and the Syrian people.
So why is it that a futile military strike is still on the table, when the threat to America is minimal and there is little certainty that bombs will directly benefit anyone? Perhaps because the stability of America’s reputation actually is critically important – to Israel.
And Israel has not been shy about demanding a proactive American response. Both the Israeli government as well as the American pro-Israel lobby AIPAC have shown outspoken support for a military strike, with the intent to set a precedent in the region. In other words, Israeli representatives, looking to ensure security and inhibit the nuclear ambitions of Iran, have consistently advocated the enforcement of Mr. Obama’s “red line” on Syria.
Israeli President Shimon Peres offered an Israeli radio station his confidence that, just as “Obama will not allow nuclear weapons in Iran,” he will go forward with the proposed strike on Syria. An AIPAC editorial, which casually features a picture of Bashar al-Assad and Ayatollah Khamenei chitchatting, mentions that, “As we witness unthinkable horror in Syria, the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions is paramount.” Subtle linkage, AIPAC.
According to Haaretz, a preeminent Israeli new source, “Most experts agree that a Congressional veto of President Obama’s plan for a U.S. military strike on Syria would not only damage his presidency but also erode America’s standing in the Middle East and diminish its power of deterrence, especially towards Iran.”
Beyond purely defensive instincts, perhaps Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers the consequences of American actions in Syria as a small potential price for an Israeli victory: bringing the U.S. ever closer to mounting a strike on Iran. The politically justifiable American reasons for striking Syria— to punish a tyrannical regime for war crimes and save the lives of innocents—could certainly apply to Iran as well.
American policymakers are also starting to conflate the two situations. Kerry has been Obama’s primary public advocate for military action against Syria, making his case before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just last week – a forum where he first spoke as a Vietnam veteran arguing against that war. Kerry warned that “Iran is hoping you look the other way,” and later in the day, everyone from Barbara Boxer to Marco Rubio to Chuck Hagel reiterated this concern.
Recently, in what seems to be a turn for the better, Syria has conceded to give up its chemical weapons stockpile. As part of an effort spearheaded by Russia, the Asssad regime has agreed to relinquish control. This would essentially allow Obama to sit on his threat while maintaining a strong front and reassuring Israel. “The very fact that the U.S. was getting ready to act militarily in Syria is positive with regards to the situation in Iran,” said Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington and a member of Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party. “Confidence in an American commitment that Iran won’t get the bomb has been strengthened,” he said, cautioning that Israel would nonetheless be looking carefully at Syria’s next moves to see if they made good on their pledge to give up poison gas.
A glimmer of acquiescence from Assad may be a light in the darkness, and perhaps a relief for American strategists. However, the destruction in Syria is overwhelmingly devastating. And while perhaps Assad will cooperate in the coming weeks, the “the war has gone on even as we’ve had this debate over chemical weapons” notes Michael Singh, managing director at the Washington Institute, a D.C.-based think tank focused on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Singh points out the unlikelihood of real change coming from this agreement: “The real problem is it just strikes most experts as impractical to somehow identify, locate and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war.”
As the conflict plays out on the international stage, there is no telling for sure what may happen next. The region is a hot bed of violence. Deadly weapons will likely fall into the hands of those who are hostile to the West. Though the future of this volatile region is far from predictable, there’s one thing we can safely count on: America’s engagement will likely be shaped by the interests of our good ol’ buddy Israel.