U.S. Sitting Out the Syria Game

By Tony Badran

In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election, Washington's regional allies were convinced that the Obama administration's lack of a Syria policy was due to the US president's preoccupation with securing a second term. Once the elections were over, the thinking went, priorities would change and the U.S. would pursue a more robust policy.

There was such desperation for American leadership and a clear U.S. policy that some in the Saudi press were counting days and hours to the election. For instance, Tariq al-Homayed, editor of al-Sharq al-Awsat, waxed hopeful in late September that in 40 days, "all options will be on the table." On the eve of the election, Homayed again wrote that the region "has been in a coma for more than a month because of the US elections... If Obama wins things will be different... In 24 hours, there will be movement and action."

Receive email alerts

Now that President Obama has been reelected, this hopeful view of a dramatic shift in U.S. policy has resurfaced. The recent formation in Doha of the Syrian National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, and the news of Turkey holding talks with NATO over deploying Patriot missile batteries on its border with Syria, have spurred speculation that the U.S. has finally changed its posture and has adopted a more aggressive Syria policy.

However, this reading is overly hopeful. What's more, it confuses the attempts by Washington's allies to spur it into action with the actual policy thinking of the Obama administration.

When the Turks deliberately leaked the news of their discussions with NATO about the Patriot batteries, the story was seen as a Turkish gambit to establish a de facto no-fly zone in northern Syria. There remains, however, much to be answered about this plan -- assuming it will even come to pass, as Ankara has not yet made an official request.

First off, on the eve of the election, the Turks were told about the continued U.S. unwillingness to pursue the safe haven option. Then last week, the State Department placed the potential deployment of Patriot batteries within a strictly defensive framework, against a possible Syrian attack on Turkey, perhaps with chemical weapons. In fact, the State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, dismissed the prospect of using the Patriot interceptors to set up a no-fly zone on the cheap as mixing "apples and oranges."

More importantly, even should Turkey and NATO go through with this deployment, the rules of engagement, as well as the details of who would man the batteries and who would hold command over them, are all unclear. However, it's safe to say that the White House, which has resisted all attempts by its regional allies to drag it into more involvement, is not likely about to offer the Turks the ability to force its hand on intervention in Syria.

The consistent statements by administration officials, before and after the election, support this conclusion. At best, the U.S. and NATO might deploy the Patriot batteries as a show of commitment to Turkey's security. But Washington will resist any attempt to alter the purpose of this deployment. This way the administration will have appeared to have done something bold, but in reality, the ground rules will have remained unchanged.

1 | 2 | Next Page››

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets@AcrossTheBayThis article was originally published on NOW Lebanon and is republished with permission.

Sponsored Links
Related Articles
November 14, 2012
Syria's Internal War Turns Against the Regime - Jeffrey White
November 13, 2012
Syria Rebels Lay Grounds for No-Fly Zone - Riad Kahwaji
November 7, 2012
The Elections, Gridlock and Foreign Policy - George Friedman
Tony Badran
Author Archive