Dignity for Iran equals an Iran free of nuclear weapons

Dignity for Iran equals an Iran free of nuclear weapons

Monday, 7 October 2013

Walid Jawad

"Either you let me play or I will spoil your game!"

This is the sound of an unhappy child that no one wants to play with but who just won’t take “no” for an answer; a sound that has been heard repeatedly in just about any unsupervised ball game. Sometimes the child even charges onto the field to snatch the ball.

This has been Iran for decades, playing the role on a global scale. Although, the difference is that Iran never wanted to play by the rules of the game, it wanted others to adhere to its version of the game, one where it could relive the “glory” of its past.

Iran of the past

The Iranian puppeteer, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still pulling the strings despite Rowhani’s assertion of Khamenei’s support.

Walid Jawad

Iran’s attitude has long been guided by animosity and steeped in mistrust causing its policies to come across as irrational. Indeed, for the last eight years, such a view has been confirmed by the words and deeds of its public face, former president Ahmadinejad, who made policies that seemed to do nothing to advance Iran’s national interest.

There is no justification for the self-inflicted economic sanctions and the resulting marginalization Iran’s people have been suffering from. Verbally, Iran made a few outlandish statements including threatening Bahrain earlier this year, homophobic declarations and denial of the holocaust in addition to interfering in sovereign states affairs as it propped up proxies to do its bidding in the region, i.e. Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Among Iran’s questionable deeds was its threatening posture in the waters of the Persian Gulf not to mention the U.N. General Assembly theatrics of Ahmadinejad among other colorful events and statements.

The prevailing wisdom is that the previous president didn’t represent the Iranian people. The people’s unsuccessful revolt protesting the 2009 presidential election results was a clear indication of where Iranians stood. The Green Revolution further emphasized the extent to which the Iranian people were unhappy with Ahmadinejad’s erratic leadership. Despite the protestors’ valiant efforts, the outcome wasn’t in their favor. When the electorate was given the chance to choose, they elected a rational candidate to move the country back to the realm of reality: Hassan Rowhani. The global community received the Iranian people’s choice with glee, so much so that the U.S. President Barack Obama placed a call to Rowhani, a first in over three decades between the leaders of the two countries. This didn’t come in a vacuum, the U.S. positive impression of Rowhani dates back to some 27 years ago ago when he was a senior defense official participating in secret meetings with President Reagan’s National Security Council staff. Then senior NSC staffer, Howard Teicher, said that “[Rowhani] said many things at the time that showed he wanted to deal with us and we could deal with them.” At its core, the U.S. wants to deal with a rational party and they found it in Rowhani.

U.S. and Iran

It is interesting to see the American and Iranian presidents’ dance to a wishful tune, but reality will halt the music sooner than they would like if they don’t act quickly. The Iranian puppeteer, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still pulling the strings despite Rowhani’s assertion of Khamenei’s support. There is no independent verification confirming a change in direction by the supreme leader yielding to the Iranian electorate or to the global community on the thorny issue of its nuclear program.

Last week’s nuclear talks offered U.S. Secretary of State Kerry an opportunity to engage Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarifin in diplomatically flirtatious banter. Kerry said “I think all of us were pleased that Foreign Minister Zarif came and made a presentation to us, which was very different in tone and very different in the vision that he held out, with respect to the possibilities for the future,” and insisted that a resolution could be reached within a matter of months if Iran is forthcoming. No doubt the U.S. will hold Iran’s feet to the fire to guarantee a peaceful nuclear program, but consideration for regional politics has to be front and center to address the concerns of many of Iran’s neighbors.

It is easier for the U.S. to give Iran the benefit of the doubt considering that Iran’s regional influence is receding with a weak Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a bleak outlook for Hezbollah in Lebanon and a scrambling Hamas. But the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and Israel have more immediate issues to deal with. Israel has its finger on the trigger ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and according to its PM Netanyahu “will keep all action on [the] table ... We will do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves.” He confirmed that “Israel will stand alone if it needs to” to ensure an Iran that is free of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is cheerleading the U.S. to do what it can to deny Iran the chance to be a nuclear bully in the region, including the use of force. Further, Turkey al-Faisal was quoted as saying that Saudi is prepared to procure “off the shelf” nuclear weapons if Iran should be allowed to gain the nuclear advantage. The odds of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club are very limited.

The future

It is time for Iran to accept the limitation of its nuclear ambition; it is not the only avenue for earning respect. Iran is poised to gain the respect and dignity it has been seeking should it work within the margins offered for a peaceful nuclear energy program. The Supreme leader’s reliance on adversarial tactics has backfired leading to Iran becoming an isolated rogue state. The Persian empire of the past will never be allowed to rise again to conquer and dominate, particularly not by becoming a nuclear power. But it can relive its glorious past as a contributing member of the global community with respect and pride. The two opposing examples of Libya, which was welcomed to the family of nations after it relinquished its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in 2003, and the North Korean example, which is still suffering economically due to its nuclear obsession, should provide the Ayatollah a clearer vision of the choice he must make. Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy will become a reality if it cooperates with the international community. Having said that, it’s a matter of saving-face for Iran which must be fully embraced by the international community.

The Obama administration, along with the international community, will have to help Iran to feel dignified as it contemplates the upcoming P5+1 talks scheduled for Oct. 28, without compromising on the verifiable actions it must agree to insuring a peaceful nuclear program. Rowhani is the ideal interlocutor to mediate for his country. He knows what needs to be done and the margins the Ayatollah is willing to work with; he knows not to appear defeated and to deny the “West” the appearance of imposing its will over his country and the need to announce a triumph for the Iranian people. The P5+1 must bring to the table proposals that offer Rowhani the leverage he needs to persuade the supreme leader to agree to the demands made of Iran.

Published by Al-Arabiya on Oct 7, 2013 here  http://goo.gl/jYDMQH

Arab Spring breezes in Saudi Arabia

By Walid A. Jawad

As Saudis celebrate their national day on September 23 they are reminded of their status among other Arab nations, including those of the Arab Spring revolutionary club, which are not faring well at the moment. As much as progressive Saudis crave freedom and human rights, they are not willing to commit to a revolutionary strategy that would push the country to protracted civil unrest. As a result, reform efforts focus on expanding the narrow margins of freedom of speech in the country to include more voices.

This is no easy task in a country that frames its social and political discourse within a religious context. Reformists arguing their case are systematically shunned and sidelined by religious conservatives in the name of adhering to Islam and preserving Saudi culture. They quickly accuse most reformers as being I’lmania, which is a concept akin to that of separation of church and state. It is used as a synonym for being ungodly. After all, it is easier to demonize those with differing opinions than to engage on the merit of their arguments.

Only recently with the advent of Twitter have Saudi liberals been able to participate in a national discussion that goes beyond the framing set by religious forces. These reformers, especially those using their real names, show courage on social media by risking the wrath of the government and the religious establishment.

Saudis are challenging a lifelong system of indoctrination in formal schooling from teachers and textbooks that promote religious intolerance and suspicion of the ‘other.’ Although Saudi school textbooks were criticized for religious intolerance a few years ago, Western interest in following up on the Saudi government’s declared textbooks reform has waned.

Educational indoctrination makes youth vulnerable to the ideology of terrorist masterminds, who encourage them to sacrifice their lives for “God.” The groundwork has already been laid in years of schooling. Terrorists need only to methodically manipulate the narrative by emphasizing injustice and suffering of Muslims around the world, then call for action on the basis of personal and religious duty.

Saudi Arabia has been burned by terrorism over the years. The Al-Saud royal family faces a self-inflicted dilemma in its insistence on legitimizing their governance of this vast and fragmented country on religious grounds. Saudi Arabia’s few political detainees are mainly reformers who publicly called for a constitutional monarchy.

The monarchy seems to prefer dealing with security threats versus shaking its foundation for governance. This requires the ruling family to walk a tightrope of appeasing the religious establishment while suppressing those who question its legitimacy.

Short of a serious restructuring of the country’s political and educational systems, Riyadh needs to continue to manage the fallout of its textbook problem, which typically spills over to the general public in Friday sermons. As if being indoctrinated in schools in not enough, Saudis listen to fiery, emotional sermons that move some of them to “gift” their lives as human bomb fuses in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria.

These galvanizing sermons have created such an image problem that the government decided to require imams to apply for a permit to give a politically charged sermon and to punish those who do not comply. The Saudi Gazette’s latest report cites that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs “has noticed some imams focused on sensitive political topics related to the ongoing political incidents in a number of Arab countries” and has “dismissed a number of mosque imams in six cities after they delivered sermons that touched on sensitive issues of a political nature…The rulings affected 18 imams in total.”

At least the royal court has considerable leverage over imams, as it pays their salaries, but it cannot control young religious zealots who claim Hisba. This Islamic doctrine is grounded in commanding what is morally right and forbidding what is morally wrong, making it the responsibility of each Muslim to do something or say something to correct whatever is contrary to Islam.

This exponentially spreading phenomenon is manifesting itself in the actions of individuals who take it upon themselves to disrupt or spoil any events or activities they believe do not agree with Islam. They consistently reference religious texts or principles as the basis for their actions, which they believe provides a legal authority and immunity from prosecution despite their sometimes aggressive style.

This trend is seen frequently and occurred at the large annual book fair organized by the government and in smaller venues such as cultural centers. The latest significant event affected by Hisba was the screening of the first Oscar-nominated Saudi feature film in the foreign language category, “Wadjda”. In acquiescence to the Hisba campaign against showing the movie, a Riyadh cultural center abruptly announced postponing the film after its first showing, citing technical issues according to news reports.

The movie is directed by a Saudi woman and highlights the struggles of women and girls in the patriarchal kingdom. It is unusual for an Oscar-nominated film to be prohibited from public showings in the country of origin. Saudi Arabia does not have public movie theaters; they are banned. And cultural centers have no capacity to receive the general public for such a movie.

Liberal Saudis took to the Twitter-sphere voicing their opposition to the ban and sparking a discussion on the issue. In the public sphere, Hisba activists and their official counterparts, known unofficially as the religious police, continue to suppress any expression that contradicts their narrow interpretation of Islam.

Year after year, Saudis test their freedoms as the calendar approaches February 14 – Valentine’s Day. The color red becomes suspect as couples celebrate their love. Stuffed teddy bears, heart-shaped chocolate and red roses become the target for religious police as shop- keepers feed the temporary black market from their back doors and loading docks.

More liberal voices are gaining ground, particularly on social media. Their fight is not for a blanket Western-style freedom of expression, but to broaden language used in Saudi Arabia to go beyond the religious context. Once such a language is accepted then reformers can engage in a dialogue over rights and responsibilities, leading to discussions on the right to celebrate love, the virtues of filmmaking, and constitutional monarchy, among other pressing issues. Saudi Arabia does not appear to be close to joining the Arab Spring club but it is definitely enjoying the breeze it created.

حرق القرآن؟ خليه يموت قهر!

هل سمعت عن مدينة مولبيري في ولاية فلوريدا؟ أنا شخصيا لم أسمع بها من قبل ولا بمعدن قرابة ٤٠٠٠ آلاف شخص هم سكان المدينة. كما أنني لا أعلم الكثير عن المقاطعة التي تقع فيها هذه المدينة والمعروفة باسم بولك. ولكن كلنا سمع بالقس تيري جونز المحارب للإسلام بعروضه الدراماتيكية لحرق القرآن. في يوم الأربعاء الماضي كانت المواجه بين سكان مدينة مولبيري وذلك القس عندما حذرته الشرطة من عدم خرق قوانين الولاية.

كما هي عادة جونز في كل عام في ذكرى ١١ سبتمبر يستجمع القس الـ ٥٠ شخصا من أتباعه في عرض لحرق القرآن. كانت البداية بقرآن واحد ولكن ذلك لم يعد كافيا بعد أن خمد لهيب التغطية الإعلامية فأراد أن يحرق ٢٩٩٨ قرآنا هذا العام. سر ذلك العدد أنه عدد الذين قتلوا في الهجمات الارهابية على أمريكا قبل ١٢ عام. سؤالي هنا هل يشمل ذلك العدد الأربعين مسلما من أعضاء الدفاع المدني لمدينة نيويورك والعاملين في مبنى التجارة العالمي الذين قضوا في ذلك اليوم؟ على أي حال قرر جونز أن يذهب إلى مدينة مولبيري آخذا معه منقلا (أو شواية\كانون) كبيرا محملا بالـ ٢٩٩٨ قرآنا المغمورين في الكيروسين لإشعال النار فيه. بمجرد إقترابه من الحديقة التي إختارها لإحراق القرآن أوقفه فريق من الشرطة وألقوا القبض عليه بتهمة نقل مواد مشتعلة على الطريق السريع مخالفا بذلك قانون ولاية فلوريدا.

الغاية تبرر الوسيلة؛ الغاية هي رغبة أهالي مقاطعة بولك منع تيري جونز وأتباعه من جرهم في وحل الكراهية ومعاداة الإسلام. الوسيلة كانت قانونية مع أنها لم تكن بإيقافه عن التعبير عن رأيه والمضمون بنص الدستور الأمريكي ولكن بعرقلة خطواته ومخططه. لقد حاول الأمريكيون ثني القس عن الكراهية بشكل مباشر عبر السنين حين ذكره الرئيس الأمريكي أوباما بالقيم الأساسية التي قامت عليها أمريكا وأهما الحرية الدينية فقد كانت أمريكا تاريخيا مأمنا لكل من حورب لمعتقد ديني. كما تحدث إليها وزير الدفاع روبرت جيت كذلك ولكن تجاوبه كان مؤقتا فعاد إلى تصريحاته النارية وأفعاله المسرحية الدراماتيكية. لقد سئم الأمريكيون من أفعاله ولذلك قرر أهل مولبيري استخدام الأدوات المتاحة لديهم لكي يقفوا أمام أفعال القس الهوجاء وبالفعل حققوا ذلك.

هناك تساؤل يطرح نفسه حول مبدأ حرية التعبير وما إذا كان يؤمن أهالي تلك البلدة بالقيم الأساسية للولايات المتحدة وبالأخص مبدأ حرية التعبير؟ لا يوجد أي شخص عاقل يجرؤ على سلب حق حرية التعبير من أي شخص آخر في أمريكا لأن استثناء شخص أو مجموعة ما سيفتح الباب لاستثناء أشخاص آخرين ومن المؤكد أن الدور سيأتي على الذي بدأ بدحرجة كرة الثليج الإقصائية هذه. لم يمنع أهل مولبيري القس تيري من التعبير الحر عن آراءه الملتوية ولكنهم وجدوا عذرا قانونيا لثنيه عن إكمال خطة. لا بد وأن المبدأ الذي أعطاهم الحق في حجب حق التعبير عن تيري جونز هو مبدأ "الخير العام". من المؤكد لأن بعض المبادئ الأساسية تؤدي إلى ضرر في بعض الحالات الاستثنائية. مبدأ "الخير العام" يضع الحقوق والمسؤليات في نصابها عندما يكون الإلتزام بمبدأ مثل حق حرية التعبير يؤدي إلى إثارة الفتنة في المجتمع. ولكن ذلك مبدأ شائك وربما يؤدي إلى الانزلاق إلى حالة من الفساد الأخلاقي عندما يساء استخدامه في محاولة لسلب حقوق الأقليات أو لتهميش بعض الجماعات أو لإبقاء أفراد طبقة معينة في مكانة سلطوية لتحقيق أفضلية لا يستحقونها. يبقى أن في هذه الحالة بالذات يكون استخدام أهل مولبيري للقانون من أجل تحقيق غاتهم بالفعل هو الخيار الأصوب فعلى أقل تقدير كان بالامكان لتيري جونز أن يتجنب ذلك لولا استهانته بالقوانين المحلية.

متابعة جونز وأفعاله تؤكد لي أن إعطاء الأغبياء الإهتمام الذي يصبون إليه هو إعطاءهم أكبر من حجمهم ووقوعا في فخ لا يجوز للحكيم أن يقع فيه، وأن أفضل وسيلة لمحاربة المؤججين للفتن هي بتجاهل أقوالهم وأفعالهم طالما أنها كانت في حدود الدراما الهادفة إلى اجتذاب الأضواء. أعترف أني وقعت ضحية بالكتابة عنه وعن أفعاله ولو جزئيا، ولكن عزائي أني تعلمت الدرس ولن أعطيه أكبر من حجمه لكي يعيش في ظلمة عدم الاكتراث الاعلامي – أو كما يقال “خليه يموت قهر”!

- 

نشرت في إيلاف ١٤ سبتمبر ٢٠١٣ http://goo.gl/DgEVKH

Obama’s misguided Middle East policy

President Barack Obama addressed the nation about Syria in a nationally televised prime-time address Sept. 10.

By Walid Jawad

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Tuesday, President Barack Obama addressed the nation to justify his resolve to punish the Assad regime, save any diplomatic miracle. Yet his resolve should not be mistaken for a steadfast interest in the Middle East; rather it is a blip on the radar that is driven by other considerations. At every major juncture, where President Barack Obama was forced to make a decision regarding the region, he chose a policy position that gave the appearance of U.S. engagement but in reality was inept and ineffectual at its core.

Obama’s intentionally equivocal foreign policy strategy of keeping minimal U.S. engagement in the Arab world is not advancing U.S. interests in the region. This risk nothing, lose nothing approach skillfully serves the Obama administration by preventing the image of failure.

Obama’s major policy decisions began with naming George Mitchell as a special envoy to the Middle East. The stated goal was to help bring Israel and Palestinians back to the negotiating table in an effort to push them toward a final resolution to this age-old conflict. During Mitchell’s tenure and beyond Obama did not show any active leadership in pressuring the two sides to come to the table and move towards a resolution.

His first visit as President to Israel and the West Bank was not until March this year. Once there, the personal dynamic with Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, amid worries over Iran’s nuclear program left no room for the issue of peace talks. Obama has been offered a second chance to take a more proactive role now that Secretary John Kerry is steering the parties closer together.

While Obama addressed “Muslim communities” around the world in his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, that speech was more a public relations stunt than a policy address. He aimed to reset the conspicuously skewed scoreboard with the Muslim world after two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Generally speaking, the Arab and Muslim worlds welcomed the opportunity to turn the page, but their hopes and dreams for a U.S. president who would understand their regions was quickly crushed by apathetic and misguided American foreign policy and continued military operations and drone attacks in different parts of the region.

When the Arab world looked to the United States for support as Egyptians took to the streets to oust the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak on January 25, 2011, the administration’s initial response was to support the status quo. Only when momentum tipped the scales to the side of the protesters did the United States declare its support for freedom and democracy. The list of disappointing American policies toward the Middle East goes on to include events in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Bahrain. Yet this is not a final list of unsettled Arab states.

The enigma of Saudi Arabia must be considered in future optics for the Middle East. Saudis might increase their push for reforms leading to an Arab Spring-type revolution. In such a case, the United States will not have the capacity to juggle concurrent unrest in three Arab heavyweight states: Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The United States should steer Egypt’s democracy and extinguish the fires of civil war in Syria before Saudis take to the streets. Assuming Twitter campaigns are a window into Saudi thinking, the United States should consider broad dissatisfaction in the Kingdom.

A recent CNN report on Saudi tweets stated that the Arabic hashtag “the salary does not meet my needs” reached 17 million tweets in the first two weeks, making it “not only the most popular hashtag in Arabic, but the most popular in any language.”

King Abdullah is managing his people quite skillfully, but Saudis are demanding more than what the royal family can offer: freedom, reform, equality, opportunities and some form of a constitution. The peoples’ love for Abdullah the man does not necessarily extend to the House of Saud. Furthermore, competing groups within the country could easily bring an era of instability to the oil-rich country.

It is unclear how Saudi Arabia’s disenfranchised Shi’a population, accounting for some 20 percent of the total population, and the powerful Salafi-supported religious establishments will react when unemployed Saudi youth team with reformist-leaning middle class to demand their rights. Civil strife similar to Egypt’s is not a far-fetched scenario in Saudi Arabia.

The situation in Egypt is intensifying. The attempted assassination of the Egyptian Minister of Interior on Thursday is foretelling of a brewing civil war under General Abdel Fattah Said al-Sisi’s watch.

It would be a global catastrophe for the three most influential Arab states – Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia – to be a state of disarray. The United States has allies in the region to nurture, a nuclear Iranian to contain and oil prices to keep at bay.

It was not until a global outrage exploded at Assad’s use of chemical weapons on August 21 that Washington decided to take a stand. The United States did not do enough to help the people of Syria throughout the two and a half years since their own uprising. The magnitude of destruction, the number of dead exceeding 100,000 and the seven million refugees spilling over to neighboring countries and internally displaced were not enough cause for a serious U.S. stance against the Assad regime. There were only hollow statements such as the unfulfilled declaration to arm the rebels.

The administration apparently believes that a strategy of limited engagement in Middle East politics will ultimately serve American interests, since the Arab Spring gave the promise of inching those countries closer toward democracy and the rule of law. Uncertainty is settling in now that the Arab Spring is frozen in time. The bleak outlook for civil strife in Syria and Egypt is creating a sense of urgency, prompting Obama to belatedly take a more active role.

Nevertheless, freedom-loving, democracy-seeking Middle Easterners must realize that ultimately this is their fight and their fight alone, and they should smarten up on how they go about effecting the change they require. Learning from the mistakes committed by established democracies, old and new, will prevent them from committing potentially devastating blunders.

This is a time when doing nothing is much worse than doing something. The Unites States as the leader of the free world should not resort to doing something for the sake of appearance. Washington should put together a comprehensive action plan and strategy to move Syria to a positive conclusion that delivers its people from the evils they face.

Once the first shots are fired on Syrian targets, the United States would have committed itself to this conflict. It must finish what it will start with careful forethought and planning, rather than leave the inexperienced and vulnerable Syrian people to their own devices and open the door for other sinister groups to exploit the power vacuum.

Ongoing bombing and continued unrest in Iraq is a testament to America’s halfhearted effort and failed outcome. Stability in the Middle East is the ultimate goal and needs to be built on freedoms and democracy. America must get it right this time.

Walid Jawad is an Atlantic Post contributor based in Washington, D.C.

Posted on September 11, 2013

Published on The Atlantic Post on Sep 11, 2013
http://goo.gl/r0rMjc

Obama’s local, international obstacles on Syria

Sunday, 1 September 2013

Walid Jawad

All indications point to an imminent U.S. tomahawk volley attack on Syria lasting for a couple of days. Such a strike doesn’t have a declared military objective. Rather, it is designed to punish the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for its use of chemical weapons. It appears that Damascus was getting bolder in widening the scope of its use of chemical weapons every time a reported attack went unchallenged by the international community during the course of this year. International tolerance has finally run out with Assad’s presumed latest chemical attack causing the death of over 350 people and the victimization of over 1,500 just outside of Damascus on August 21.

The Syrian regime’s blatant use of chemical weapons against its own people and the ensuing global outrage has put the American administration in a bind; giving Obama no option but to stand up to the Syrian regime in an effort to preserve the U.S.’s global role and prestige despite Americans’ disinterest in engaging Assad militarily. Americans ask, “Why should the U.S. partake in Syria?” Most can’t understand why is it necessary for the U.S. to jump into the muddy waters of the Syrian civil war and potentially get mired along the way.

With the losses in Iraq fresh in their minds, average Americans are weary of the U.S. government’s plans to commit national resources to a military intervention in Syria, all the while taxpayers are dealing with the effects of budget sequestration. As far as most Americans are concerned this is not a moral question; it is a choice between the personal well being of American citizens vs. an expensive overseas show of force lacking a clear objective. The American public has a long history of going along with and even supporting the various administrations as different U.S. presidents took the country to war only to be disappointed and enraged by the loss of American lives all while resulting in little outcome. Iraq and Afghanistan are merely the latest examples.

Americans on Syria

Americans ask, “Why should the U.S. partake in Syria?” Most can’t understand why is it necessary for the U.S. to jump into the muddy waters of the Syrian civil war and potentially get mired along the way.

Walid Jawad

All things being equal, Americans expect, at a minimum, to be enlightened about a number of things before committing the nation to any military intervention and rightly so. What is the desired and expected outcome, the strategy for achieving the stated objectives, what is the time commitment needed in order to achieve its goals, how much will it cost, what kind of exit strategy is in place, and whether the gains will justify the means. The stated outcome from the imminent strike against Syria is a punitive one targeting the Assad regime, when and if Obama makes the decision to use force against Syrian targets. You will be hard pressed to find clear answers to the rest of the questions.

Obama implied on Wednesday that the military options he is looking at are limited in scope and designed to prevent the country from engaging in a drawn out war like the Iraq war. Obama described it as “a shot across the bow,” which leads us to believe that it’s going to be a swift engagement. We can safely assume that this “shot across the bow” will target Syria’s military installations in hopes “the Assad regime would have received a very strong signal to better not do it again” according to Obama, making it a short lived military strike with limited risks that will end the same way it starts; suddenly and without much of a diplomatic effort.

In essence, Obama wants to teach Assad a lesson, which he explained as such: “we want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people against women, against infants, against children, that you are not only breaking international norms and standards of decency, but you are also creating a situation where U.S. national interests are affected and that needs to stop.” Although about half of all Americans would support limited missile strike against government forces so long that it doesn’t endanger American lives, less than 3 out of every 10 Americans support a wider intervention in Syria.

Congressional OK

A number of Republicans and Democrats have signed a letter stating that the White House is obligated to get Congressional authorization before deploying a military strike. Although Congress is enjoying a summer recess, Obama can convene both chambers to ask for the green light. The American President does not have the constitutional authority to launch a military campaign without congressional approval unless it was necessary to protect the nation from an imminent threat.

Getting congressional authority is not an easy hurdle to overcome despite calls by many of its members for a firm stance on Syria’s use of deadly chemical weapons. House speaker, John Boehner, pressed the Obama administration for answers on the wisdom of the military attack and possible fallout signaling a tough road ahead for the Obama administration to secure the authority to commit the U.S. to a military action.

Global support

Washington has a number of options to circumvent public discomfort for the use of the military option in Syria and the same goes for congress; which will eventually free Obama’s hand to make the decision to strike against the Assad regime. The situation is much more challenging as the Obama administration seeks Global support for its anticipated attack. The U.N. option is out of reach due to Russian and Chinese opposition to any resolution that would effectively weaken the Assad regime; veto power most probably will be exercised. So, the U.N. Security Council will not provide the sought after international cover.

A coalition of the willing would be a viable alternative to U.N. support, but such a coalition doesn’t exist. The British Parliament has defeated Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposed resolution to approve military action, the U.S. has only France left for support, which doesn’t bode well for the efforts to put together an International coalition. Further, the Arab League conveniently sidestepped the situation all together by avoiding calling for or publically supporting a military intervention. The Arab League is the most significant body outside of the U.N. that would give legitimacy for the use of force against the Syrian regime.

The Arab League cannot feign ignorance by pretending not to see the situation in Syria. They, like the rest of the international community, have a moral responsibility toward the Syrian people that demands putting aside their own differences. Supporting competing rebel groups within Syria for the narrow interest of individual Arab States is to play a very risky regional game on Syrian soil. Nevertheless, the status quo is unsustainable; something will have to give. In this case Iran and al-Qaeda are in the running for the win.

What will the U.S. do?

Despite the tough place Obama finds himself in, as he reluctantly accepts the responsibility to lead a punitive militarily attack against the Assad regime, he is left out in the open without much support or international cover. It is too late for the White House to back track at this point. The U.S. will, and is obligated to, act on its promise to punish the Assad regime sooner rather than later.

The Arab world has to take heed, especially countries that have yet to enjoy the transformative effects of the Arab Spring, that they are missing out on an opportunity to stay relevant; particularly considering that U.S. reliance on petroleum imports is diminishing as its own energy production and exports are rising. The equation is changing for the U.S. in the Middle East and thus it will inevitably change the nature of the current rapport with each of the region’s players.

_________________
Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj

Published on Al-Arabiya on Sep 1, 2013 http://goo.gl/yX8uBx