Why the Russian gambit was made and will succeed.
Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)
First, although the US was beating the drums for war, it was not enthusiastic about attacking Syria-- that's why previous smaller chemical attacks were ignored. The rebel forces include potential terrorists. Trying to ensure that the world does not tolerate use of WMD is a cornerstone of US foreign policy. And with suspicions that nearby Iran is developing nuclear weapons and will require a significant response down the line, a chemical attack as large as was reported could not be ignored, no matter how unpopular a strike against Syria was at home or abroad. OTOH, President Obama was about to lose a vote in the House, so the situation was one where a strike would have been very difficult to attempt, in spite of perceived US foreign policy interests.
Second, Syria is close to Russia (just as Iraq was close to the Soviet Union and Russia, except during the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war, where Russia was neutral). Russia did not want to lose an ally, and was afraid American attacks could have destabilized Assad. The memory of GWB's war in Iraq is still fresh in Putin's mind as well. Russia did not want to be reminded of their apparent weakness on the world stage.
Third, Assad is winning in Syria, the chemical weapons are now more of liability than a help, since the American attacks could degrade his military capacity at a crucial time. Whether his forces launched the attack is irrelevant, though it is certainly not excluded that the Syrian government did it because they wanted to weaken a key hotbed of resistance and thought they could get away with it, as they apparently had several times before.
Here's my take on how it all came down. i believe that the possibility of Syria surrendering their chemical weapons was previously discussed by the US and Russians and rejected by either the Syrians and Russians, most likely the former. Such discussions would not be surprising as the ultimate American goal is to eliminate WMDs (see above) and especially to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran. However, I believe that Russia especially has been working behind the scenes on just this scenario, trying to find a way to prevent the American strike on Syria's military. Kerry made his off the cuff remark because it was certainly an idea that had been discussed and thus on his mind, but he dismissed it as impossible, most likely because of previous limited discussions on the topic. Of course this is speculation, but well-grounded in the way diplomacy tends to work. (update: it was indeed discussed last week as I had guessed http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9890I020130910?irpc=932 ) (further update: looks like Putin and Obama discussed this possibility as well last week http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-obama-idUSBRE9891B620130910) However, yesterday the Russians saw this as a perfect opening to advance their own interests, and quickly got the agreement of the Syrians who were frankly afraid of an American attack that they saw as inevitable. The US was at first and is suspicious of this proposal, as has been reported, but the solution fulfills the basic goal of the US here, to prevent WMD use and proliferation, as well as maintaining the pressure on Iran not to develop nukes. It also circumvents an almost certain defeat in the House on authorization of the strike.
So it is in everyone's interests for the Russian gambit to succeed, as it likely will.
= new reply since forum marked as read
