Syria’s plan to give up its chemical weapons could make things worse, not better

Few people depress me these days like Michael Doran. A Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, Doran has been a leading advocate among thoughtful foreign policy analysts for a more aggressive U.S. intervention to end the conflict in Syria. Agree or disagree with that policy (I’m not sure I do, personally), it’s left him especially skeptical of the Obama administration’s push for limited strikes against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

When Russia seized on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s offhand suggestion that Syria could avoid U.S. strikes by giving up its chemical weapons, I reacted, like many, with highly cautious optimism that this could offer a small but significant reprieve for Syrians and success for Obama. But Doran had a very different take: that this is a dishonest ploy by Russia and Syria that boxes in the Unites States and, more importantly, makes any relief for Syria’s civil war far less likely.

With Russian keeping Assad in charge, Gazprom continues its stranglehold on the European gas market. The Russian Navy keeps its seaport in the Mediterranean. Better or worse? Neither, it's status quo. There's an outside chance it would actually be worse for Russia, who've had bad luck trying to dominate Muslim nations like Chechnya and Afghanistan. I expect they'll let Assad run the country and stay in the background as much as possible.

With the Russians backing Assad, I expect the Syrian rebels to fade into the woodwork. Assad will never be well-beloved but I expect he will be more tolerable. The rebels know with Russian and UN "inspectors" in the country there's no possibility of US airstrikes and definitely no US boots on the ground. Better? For me, yes - since I don't want our troops anywhere near the place. It's not worth one drop of our soldiers' blood.

For the Saudis and Qataris, I suppose it's worse. Their pipeline is back on permanent hold, and they're boxed out of the European market. That's not bothering me too much, though.

For Israel? Better, I suppose. Assad is a known enemy, if he was deposed his successor would probably be hardline anti-Semitic. You could say that if Assad holds onto his job Syria could be an island of stability in a volatile region.

For Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, et al, it's worse I suppose. These organizations seem to thrive on disorder and weak government. With Assad in charge there's no power vacuum for them to fill.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.