As Yogi Berra pointed out, predicting the future is always so much harder than any other kind of predicting. Nevertheless, I want to go on record here and predict that the US strikes on Syria will not come to pass.
For the last couple of days I've been reassuring friends and family who were justifiably anxious after the State Department announced it was sending people home and advised the rest of us to skedadle. Pointing out that I'm carrying a Swiss passport wasn't sufficient to convince them, so, for the last 48 hours or so I've been explaining why I don't think the strikes will happen. In fact, I think that the US government is hard at work on a climb-down that will allow it to claim victory without military action. And has been, ever since Obama suddenly decided he needed cover from Congress before hitting Syria.
Here's the logic that brought me to that conclusion:
My first clue came when Obama decided to 'consult' Congress. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this looked suspiciously like hitting the brakes hard at 60 mph. You only really do that if you're trying to stop the vehicle. Also, it suddenly imposed at least a 2 week horizon on something that had to be done while the issue was hot, in order to expect public support.
The second clue came in the form of the l'Orient le Jour article I translated here a few days ago. In it, we learned about a whole hidden world of behind-the-scenes communication between the US, Russia, Syria and Iran. One of the important take-aways was the fact that US - Russia channels were hard at work trying to work a solution, in contrast to all the bellicose public posturing. This immediately told me that Russia - ostensibly the bad guy in the movie - was probably going to turn out to be a key player in resolving things.
The US needed international agreement, at a bare minimum, before taking any action. Once the Brits pulled out, it was left to France to play the role of international 'coalition'. This looked like a pretty good bet right up until yesterday, when French officials suddenly started mumbling about needing to go back to the UN, after all. At that point, we're now talking about several more weeks of wearying diplomacy before anything at all can be done.
Letting a hot issue be buried by the news cycle is always a strategy, and it looks to me like this is what Obama is up to. He can talk tough, but as the issue fades in people's minds and public support evaporates (such as it is, according to reports I've seen it's never been even a bare majority) it becomes easier to slowly climb down, at least on the domestic scene.
Internationally, however, things are a little more complicated. The US doesn't want to/can't be seen to make empty threats, so something has to give on the other side. Here's where the Russians ride to the rescue. As we learned from l'Orient le Jour (and elsewhere since then) they've already been putting pressure on Iran and Assad. And to some avail, as Ayatollah Rafsanjani himself referred to the Syrian use of chemical weapons in a speech two or three days ago. The reference was redacted in later versions, but the signal was clear. And yesterday we had reports that Iran has been leaning on Syria to commit to no further use of these weapons.
Simultaneously, an interesting change in US policy: in what was supposedly a 'gaffe' by Kerry, but may actually have been a covert signal to the Russians, the Administration suddenly announced that military action might be avoided if Syria gave up its chemical stocks within a week's time. Aha! So, we might not need to bomb after all. Then came another step: the US went soft on the one-week deadline. So far, so good!
Here's where the Russians come in. And, in fact, we heard this evening, right on schedule, that Lavrov has demanded that the Syrians commit to no further use of chemical weapons.
And, if you think about it, this is all the US needs to hear. The people of Ghouta are dead and can't be brought back, no matter how massive the US attack. The only question ever at issue was that of future use. All the talk about 'punishment' was to drum up support at home and in Europe - and never really seemed to convince its intended audience. ( I have to admit to being somewhat of an exception. However, that's just how I feel about the Assad regime, in general.) Countries don't 'punish' one another for moral lapses, for the simple reason that morality plays no part in how international affairs are conducted - in fact, as opposed to in the public sphere. My friend May a couple of days ago put together a list of US uses of chemical and near-chemical weapons in recent decades...and the list is as long as your arm. If you want to add European countries and the USSR to the list it immediately doubles or trebles in length.
So, here's the scenario going forward - as predicted by Michel:
Efforts to put together some sort of 'coalition' continue, as a pressure tactic. They have no practical importance at this point. Ditto for Congress.
Assad makes as many threats as he likes, whether against the US, the French or the Inuit. He already probably knows his chemical stocks are going back on the shelf, at least for the time being.
The Russians are sitting pretty. They get to make a sudden transformation from outlaws to Texas Rangers. In a few days they announce that Assad has agreed to no further use of chemical weapons, thus obviating the need to strike his forces.
The US gets to announce that they've succeeded in getting Syria to back down without the use of force. Everybody is happy, and the human shields on their way to Syria can go home or spend some time in Greece on the way back.
I think it was my sister, Carole, who asked, 'can Assad be trusted'. To which the answer is twofold: No, of course not. And, it doesn't matter. As long as he appears to knuckle under, the file on this particular crisis can be closed. No doubt, the US will make threats about what will happen if he reneges. But they can use the interim to work on developing a more workable approach, should Assad prove to be a recidivist.
The Saudis, the Qataris, and particularly Prince Bandar (alive or dead?) go back to work doing what they were doing anyway, trying to topple Assad through more humdrum means. By humdrum I refer to the use of jihadi madmen who, if they win, will lead a worldwide jihadi terror attack on...Saudi Arabia. Well, the Saudis feel they're pretty well insulated by their fearsome intelligence services which eats jihadis for breakfast. Nevertheless, they may live to regret the day they adopted this particular strategy.
Wow, that's two predictions for the price of one!
The US and Europe can return to dithering about which particular faction of the Syrian opposition is worthy of receiving support in the form of small arms and maybe a few flak jackets. The war in Syria will continue to kill innocent civilians just as surely, but using acceptable means.
And we, in Beirut, have one less reason to eyeball parked cars anxiously as we head to the cafe whose generator allows full-time (more or less) internet. As opposed to our apartments, where power is always out, about to go out, or shouldn't have gone out, but did.
Until something else big happens in Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment