The deal over Syrian chemical weapons provides a conundrum for people like me: it's a very good solution, since it does not involve bombing anyone and it reduces the chances of chemical weapons being used. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine it coming about without a credible thread of airstrikes to back it up. How credible a threat is more difficult to determine, since getting a vote through congress was looking particularly dicey. But does anyone imagine that if it had been Iceland complaining about Syrian chemical weapons, that something would have been done?
Obama now gets a double benefit from this, as he has a chance to convey a message to the Iranians with his actions. Back in 2003, the US demanded Iraq give up its WMDs. Iraq, after much pressure, eventually said they didn't have any left and offered to let inspectors in. The US said "not good enough" and invaded anyway. The lesson for Iran there would have been clear: if they US comes after you, agreeing to their demands won't help, but actual weapons might.
In 2013, the US can undo this lesson by taking yes for an answer from the Syrians. The new lesson for Iran would be that if you give up (or do not develop) the nukes, the US will not attack, even if it really doesn't like you.
I personally have no liking for the current regimes in Syria or Iran, but military force is very unlikely to make things better for anyone, as Iraq has amply demonstrated.
Therein lies an extension of the conundrum; Iraq was a disaster for the US, and a country like Iran might feel that the US couldn't invade them after that. But it also demonstrated that the US really is capable of barrelling ahead with something like that, even against its own interests. So while attacking Iran seems like a really stupid strategic move, the Iranians can't bank on that being enough to stop it.
So what effect did Iraq have on the US ability to influence Syria? It's hard to tell. An apparent willingness to pull crazy stunts can be very useful in a negotiation like this, even if the crazy stunts themselves hurt you.
I'd still like to see some of this enthusiasm being directed at feeding the refugees created by the civil war, but at least we are not dropping high explosive on it. And even if the Syrians are lying through their teeth about getting rid of their chemical weapons, the deal still makes it much harder for them to be used; for one thing, it would embarrass the Russians.
So far, this has turned out much better than I feared...
Obama now gets a double benefit from this, as he has a chance to convey a message to the Iranians with his actions. Back in 2003, the US demanded Iraq give up its WMDs. Iraq, after much pressure, eventually said they didn't have any left and offered to let inspectors in. The US said "not good enough" and invaded anyway. The lesson for Iran there would have been clear: if they US comes after you, agreeing to their demands won't help, but actual weapons might.
In 2013, the US can undo this lesson by taking yes for an answer from the Syrians. The new lesson for Iran would be that if you give up (or do not develop) the nukes, the US will not attack, even if it really doesn't like you.
I personally have no liking for the current regimes in Syria or Iran, but military force is very unlikely to make things better for anyone, as Iraq has amply demonstrated.
Therein lies an extension of the conundrum; Iraq was a disaster for the US, and a country like Iran might feel that the US couldn't invade them after that. But it also demonstrated that the US really is capable of barrelling ahead with something like that, even against its own interests. So while attacking Iran seems like a really stupid strategic move, the Iranians can't bank on that being enough to stop it.
So what effect did Iraq have on the US ability to influence Syria? It's hard to tell. An apparent willingness to pull crazy stunts can be very useful in a negotiation like this, even if the crazy stunts themselves hurt you.
I'd still like to see some of this enthusiasm being directed at feeding the refugees created by the civil war, but at least we are not dropping high explosive on it. And even if the Syrians are lying through their teeth about getting rid of their chemical weapons, the deal still makes it much harder for them to be used; for one thing, it would embarrass the Russians.
So far, this has turned out much better than I feared...
No comments:
Post a Comment