One of US President Barack Obama's core campaign promises during the 2008 Presidential election was a military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Following through, his actions seem to have prioritised diplomacy over interventionist military responses, and policies of 'strategic patience' and the prudent use of power where necessary. Part of the policy package has been the shift from the model of fighting expensive large scale ground wars, to capacity-building in partner countries to prevent the growth of violent extremism and conflict.
Syria is a classic example of this strategy. It can be argued that the US’ policy is aimed at avoiding repeats of interventions in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq – whose outcomes are virtually impossible to determine, in addition to getting bogged down in expensive nation-building exercises with no definable exit option. This is possibly why despite limited training and capacity building of a select few “moderate rebels,” the administration has been remarkably aversive to play an active role in the war theatre. This has been frequently done against overwhelming allied disapproval, including holding back on the proposed joint strike in Syria with the French forces in the wake of the Ghouta chemical attacks. At best, the US' air strikes have focused on achievable outcomes. Tactics of coercion and dissuasion have been employed to eliminate the Syrian government's arsenal of chemical weapons through diplomatic means, and specific targeted strikes have been carried out by fighters and drones against carefully selected ISIS targets by the CIA, and by having local players do the heavy lifting.
---
Another overriding aspect of the non-intervention in Syria was Obama's dogged pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. Getting involved in combat in Syria would have almost certainly brought the US forces into direct conflict with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Tehran’s proxy, the Hezbollah. A direct US intervention in Syria would have vastly complicated the already convoluted calculus of the nuclear deal. In effect, Obama's Syria policy was subordinated to his Iran policy. In doing this, he was willing to accept tactical “defeats” in exchange for a major and tangible “strategic victory.” If it realises its full potential, the nuclear deal, combined with the economic rehabilitation of Iran, holds the promise of altering the power dynamic in the ‘middle-eastern’ politics as we know it. While it will take time, the lifting of sanctions will lead to a stronger Iran, stabilising the Shia-Sunni conventional balance of power in the region, possibly reducing Iran’s dependence on sub-conventional actors for power projection.
The deal also creates path dependency – i.e. the benefits of maintaining a non-nuclear Iran will vastly outweigh the US’ institutional tendency to pick fights with the Iranians. In effect, this forces the regional US dependents such as Saudi Arabia to seek its own allies and methods to tackle Iran, rather than perpetually seeking the US’ assurances and bogging the US down in intractable and untenable conflicts.
http://www.ipcs.org/article/iran/obamas-syria-policy-the-dynamics-of-engagement-5067.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
