by Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
Failed Mideast policies have left the U.S. begging Russia for a seat at the table where Syria's fate will be determined.
U.S. President Barack
Obama's address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday was his worst and
most embarrassing yet. Despite the fact that it has been seven years
since he was elected president, it seems Obama has yet to learn anything
from his growing list of failures, especially when it comes to foreign
policy.
Obama continues to
naively preach about the importance of traditional diplomacy and broad
international cooperation as a prerequisite to conflict resolution; and
he does so despite the fact that his decision to prematurely withdraw
American troops from Iraq, compounded by his aversion to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, have done nothing but breed violence, fanaticism
and radical Islamism in the Middle East.
Against the backdrop of
the bloody conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Obama delivered a
disconnected and utterly surreal speech before the U.N., lauding
democracy and international agreements, even deficient, hollow ones,
like the nuclear deal with Iran.
Beyond the
sanctimonious sermon to nations and movements without any loyalty to the
principles of Western democracy, Obama's speech lacked any new message.
On the contrary -- he essentially legitimized Russia's military
presence in Syria, and the pivotal role Moscow has appropriated in the
region due to American inaction against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
This inexcusable
failure, which followed Washington's acquiescence in allowing Russian
President Vladimir Putin become the new mediator in the chemical warfare
crisis in Syria in 2013, has afforded Moscow a coveted opportunity to
become a major player in the Middle East, one shaping a new political
and security reality.
The U.S. has been
relegated to dragging its feet in a trail blazed by the Russian leader,
as Washington is left to practically beg Moscow for a seat at the table
where Assad's fate will be determined.
Indeed, if you strip
the envelope of democracy vs. dictatorship from Obama's speech, it
becomes more than evident that he is not only willing to foster
partnerships with tyrants and oppressive regimes, but also that the
dispute between the White House and the Kremlin over Syria is marginal,
as it focuses on Assad's status in the new political order that will be
forged in Syria once the fighting subsides.
The American Gulliver,
it seems, is coming to terms with the end of the single-world power
hegemony. While the Russian military airlift to Syria continues in full
swing, Obama is content with philosophical reflections on the desired
nature of the new world order, yielding to the new balance of power
emerging in the war-torn country.
One can only lament the
fact that the U.S. president's incomprehensible weakness only
undermines the very democratic dream he himself has outlined.
This was evident in the
meeting between Obama and Putin following their respective U.N.
addresses. Despite Obama's desire to give his Russian counterpart the
cold shoulder, the fact the he declared before dozens of world leaders
that the U.S. has "no desire to return to a cold war" took the sting out
of his message.
This was nothing but an
attempt at damage control over the harm caused to the U.S.'s prestige
and status in the global theater by drawing new red lines to limit
Russia's operation in the Middle East. The problem is that we already
know how blurry those red lines are when it comes to Syria.
Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13871
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment