Home > Foreign Policy > Russia and Syria Tell Obama How to Conduct Syrian Foreign Policy

Russia and Syria Tell Obama How to Conduct Syrian Foreign Policy

September 14th, 2013
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Sept. 14, 2013 original publish date
Mar. 15, 2015 replaced broken links

09-12-2013. Left to right: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (D-MA) with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov  at a press conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The two discussed a potential resolution to how to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons (Photo Credit: AFP/ Philippe Desmazes).

09-12-2013. Left to right: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (D-MA) with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a press conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The two discussed a potential resolution to how to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons (Photo Credit: AFP/ Philippe Desmazes).

Russia and Syria Tell Obama How to Conduct Syrian Foreign Policy

original article written by Net Advisor

GENEVA, Switzerland. After President Obama was prepared to launch missile strikes on President Assad’s Syria, Russia offers a plan to rid Syria’s WMD’s and avoid military conflict – for now.

Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin came up with a plan and got Syria to agree to turn over its chemical weapons. This immediately gave President Obama a life-line of backing out of a bigger mess that the President was not prepared for: Risk of an expanded Middle-east war.

War in this region is not new. Israel already attacked anti-aircraft missile sites in Syria last January.

“U.S. officials said Israel launched the airstrike inside Syria on Wednesday, targeting a convoy believed to be carrying anti-aircraft weapons bound for Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese militant group allied with Syria and Iran.”

— Source: Fox News, 01-31-2013

[1] Kerry: It’s “Unbelievably Small”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said if the U.S. attacked Syria it would be “unbelievably small.” In other words Secretary Kerry was saying that the U.S. or the world should not get into a tizzy fit of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner’s aim to wage a ‘small’ war in Syria. In fact, the war would be so small that you would hardly even notice?

The Obama Administration said it was not looking for regime change in Syria, just basically spank Assad with a bunch of missiles for crossing Obama’s “Red Line” (repeatedly).

After this 2007 video from then Senator Biden surfaced [Video, Point 12], and then Senator Obama’s 2007 statements requiring Congressional authority to approve of war [Report, Point 13]; President Obama finally sought Congressional support for a brief war in Syria. The President didn’t have support from Congress including members of his own party to wage even a limited attack, so Mr. Obama asked Congress to delay even voting on the matter.

[2] Ms. Pelosi Goes to Syria
In 2007, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) flew to Syria against the Bush Administration’s wishes. Former President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) said back then referring to Pelosi’s Syria trip:

“I was glad that she went,” Carter said Wednesday. “When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem.”

— FMR President Jimmy Carter on Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria (Source: CNN, 04-05-2007)

That ideology didn’t quite work out for President Carter when radical Islamic students in Iran took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days during his Administration.

Even back in 2007, Syria’s Assad was considered by the U.S. as “a state sponsor of terror.” Probably it’s safe to say that Pelosi, Carter or any U.S. official would not care to visit Syria now and talk to the people who are “instrumental in the problem?”

[3] A Russian Solution in Syria?
Given the risk of an unintended Middle-east war brewing, Russia managed to get President Assad to “agree” and remove his chemical weapons.

The Obama Administration is probably relived that it doesn’t have to fire missiles at Syria, especially without congressional approval. The White House, however is still is using its school-yard tough talk, reserving the right to take action against Syria if new diplomacy fails.

Obama, in his statement, insisted that the United States “remains prepared to act” should diplomatic efforts fail.

— Source: Reuters

[4] Chemical Weapon Strings Attached
After Assad agreed to Russia to give up its chemical weapons, now there are strings attached. Russia wants Syria to be subject to weaker penalties if they don’t cooperate as planned. Instead of being hit with missiles, some sort of economic sanctions would be more acceptable. In all likelihood, Russia, Iran and China would make up for any economic losses in Syria anyway.

After Assad learned that Russia was advising the Obama Administration on how to manage foreign policy in Syria, Assad upped the ante. Assad said that he would require the U.S. to stop arming the “rebels” in Syria before Assad gives up his chemical weapons.

“On Thursday, Assad said he wouldn’t hand over his chemical weapons unless the U.S. stopped arming rebels seeking to overthrow his government.”

— Source: Los Angeles Times (Sept. 13, 2013)

[5] Al-Qaeda Threatens To “Bleed America Economically” (Too Late.)
Al-Qaeda also decided to join the mix, threatening the U.S. by calling on Muslim organizations to rise up and attack the U.S. and “bleed America economically.” The Terrorist organization won’t have to worry about calling anyone to “bleed America economically,” the Obama Administration has been doing that just fine on their own.

Sorry, Al-Qaeda, but someone already beat you too that objective.

[6] Good Luck BO.
In 2009, President Assad said he was willing to work with President Obama, wanted less violence in Syria, and supported a peace process.

“The new American government must be prepared to engage in a serious peace process. We are prepared for any form of cooperation…”

(We see opportunities for less violence). “We (Syria) would be happy to do our part to stabilize the region.”

— Said Bashar Assad. [Source: Der Spiegel On-line International (German News Media), 01-17-2009

As much as Assad said in 2009 that he wanted peace and stability, he also footnoted he was not going to give up his terrorists associations: ‘(our) country’s relations with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran would not be dictated by outsiders;’ then Assad continued his hostile views about Israel.

Four years later over 100,0000 people have been killed in a Syrian civil war. This goes to show the U.S. can’t trust these people any further than they can throw them.

[7] Throwing Washington Bad Bones
The Obama Administration seems to be grabbing whatever bones Russia, Iran, or Syria throw out to them. If history is a judge of behavior, the Obama Administration may run into a cat-and-mouse game with Syria and its chemical weapons.

On September 14, 2013, U.S. agreed with Russia not to use force on Syria. Syria has a week to disclose its WMDs, destroy all chemical weapon manufacturing facilities by November 2013. Syria then has until the middle of 2014 to rid all chemical weapons and related materials from Syria. Assad avoids any punishment for chemical weapons use if he cooperates with this deal.

In 2009, Iran also said it would cooperate on its WMDs (in this case) nuclear weapons development. Then Iran continued saying that the ‘West should not try to force Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.’

The world must think the U.S. is out to lunch (or golfing) and weak. These enemy foreign powers will do and say whatever Washington wants them to say or do so long as the foreign powers get to keep on doing whatever they want. The United Nations has kept arms distance from the Syrian civil war.

The UN investigated whether or not chemical weapons were used in Syria, but that’s about as far as the UN will go.

[8] Is the U.S. Giving Up Its Sovereign Authority?
The UN has no power unless weak or liberal nations surrender their sovereign authority to a body of foreign leaders who have no legal authority over the United States. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution defers to UN authority on anything. The U.S. has been giving up its authority seeking UN approval for decades. The UN will not stop Iran’s nukes, nor has it solved anything in the Middle-East?


[9] Syria Moving WMDs to Iraq and Lebanon?
Syrian rebels report that Assad is now moving its chemical weapons to Iraq and Lebanon.

“We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq…”

— General Selim Idris, head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council (Source: Huffington Post/Reuters)

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Syria tried to move some of their WMDs through the northern Iraqi border and into the hands of Iran.

[10] Agreement Does Not End War
This U.S-Russian agreement won’t stop the 2 1/2 year civil war in Syria. Keep in mind that Russia and Iran have supported Assad including with military weapons. China is also on Russia’s side.

Over 100,0000 people have been killed in the Syrian civil war using traditional weapons. Chemical weapons reportedly killed some 1,400 people since. The U.S., UN, Russia, Iran and the Syrian people should be pleased to know that all the people who will be killed in Syria in the future, should only be at the hands of regular bullets and explosives.


Photo Credit: As noted. Map Graphic Credit: U.S. Gov. Public Domain
original article content, Copyright © 2013, 2015 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.


Related posts:

Categories: Foreign Policy
Comments are closed.