END OF YEAR ASSESSMENT OF 2017 AND RISKS IN 2018: Calamity or Peace, Stupidity or wisdom?

By

Harry C. Blaney III

OVERVIEW OF AMERICA’S TRUMPIAN IMPACT IN 2017 AND LOOKING TO 2018

No 2017 was not a fun year, in fact our nation and our planet are now more at risk than anytime since the Cuban nuclear missile crisis in 1962 and it was almost all thanks to one man Donald Trump.

Long ago I did a book with the title “Global Challenges: A World at Risk” That was in the 1970s and I did not contemplate an American president, let along a corrupt GOP Congress, would make our world not only filled with great dangers and risks but these would be accompanied by a serious threat to our own democracy.

This may seem strange that I assess that Trump after the antics of 2017 is now one of our major risks both now and likely in 2018. The reason is very simple, in every new encounter, in every crisis, and even when there is no immediate crisis, his acts aim for the creation of even more upheaval and conflict. Thus the unilateral actions so far by Trump point toward even greater dangers for us all.

On key factor in assessing dangers is the rationality and the goals and the temperament of those that are the decision-makers in any given crisis….and that means for most of the world Donald Trump, who stated main goal is “deconstruction,” (read creating chaos and harm), and that applies to almost every past great creation by the US to maintain the peace, democracy and cooperation. Note Trump’s deliberate destruction of our diplomacy tools and institutions and especially the gutting of the Department of State.

The madness will end either when the GOP sees Trump as a liability and not an asset and the GOP billionaires agree and send that signal. Or perhaps Mueller finds the smocking gun? Otherwise they are tied to him and he is tied to them. The GOP created Trump knowing his craziness and, with malice aforethought, put him in a position to be president and supported his destructive agenda. And they took the money from the super Alt-right-wing rich and large corporations and stuck it to the rest of America.

The GOP shut their eyes to all the horrors and nasty acts he undertook abroad that made others fear us and are now repulsed by America’s “new dictator.”Democracy is a risk as commentators Paul Krugman and Martin Wolf have already noted and many others. There is no shame in the Republican caucus in Congress. The battle for our nation’s values is also a battle for America role in the world.

AREAS OF CRISIS AND CONCERN FOR AMERICAN VALUES AND SECURITY:

We will be reviewing in following forthcoming posts each of the key challenges that likely confront America and provide some insight into both likely added dangers and avenues of progress that hopefully we should take.

Looking at come of the critical points of crisis and threats in forthcoming issues we will examine Trump’s impact and ask if there re more constructive options for 2018:

IRAN:

Trump was against the Iran nuclear deal and he decertified the accord and left the use of sanctions to Congress but one motivation may have been to get others to take dangerous action that would have taken the blood off his hand in case of war. that would have moved the Iranian government to withdraw from the accord and certainly then justify using a military option with Israel with us taking the brunt of the action. As I have written and many other who are experts on Iran and on nuclear strategy and risks know tht the “nuclear deal” is in fact getting Iran to sand down on production of nuclear weapon was a major gain which safeguarded as most former Israeli security senior officials agreed made their nation safer. It is clear the rest of the key world’s leaders and military share that view including our close allies.

Where in 218 will we see change and what should we do. First and foremost we should not pull out of the Nuclear Deal accord that would not only harm the security of Israel but involve us unnecessarily in a major conflict involving Iran and most of the Middle East with great damage to a vast array of American interests and with catastrophic deaths of innocent people and exacerbate the existing conflicts of the region.

The last thing the Middle East needs is even more bloodshed. In this connection we need to change course entirely and pull back from a partisan position of favoring the Sunni position with Saudi Arabia in the lead and return to our effort to fine avenues of cooperation and reconciliation between both Sunni and Shia. That will not be an easy task and will need the cooperation of the few wise leaders in the region and others  outside. But for the long-term it is a necessity.

The most recent unrest and protests in Iran is an indicator of much sense of isolation and economic decline by the poorer sector and even some disaffection by the  middle class educated for reform and especially the need to share in any prosperity. Ironically these protects threaten both the old guard regime of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei plus his Revolutionary Guards who have now been called out according to recent reports. But the upheaval also threatens as well the somewhat more moderate and modern government of President Hassan Rouhani and most experts seem to accept the outcome will be bad in that the Revolutionary Guard, that as reportedly has now been deployed  to put down the unrest with what can only be a disaster for all. When will the leaders in the Middle East recognize that their religious and power conflicts will only result in all sides paying a very dear price?

Trump efforts, in fact are not likely done to support democracy but rather to stimulate added instability and cause as he has done elsewhere chaos which is his signature accomplishment. America must do better than that and work as we have for decades seek peace.

TRUMP’S HARMFUL “PILGRIMAGE” TO DISGRACE, DISCREDIT AND DISUNITY

TRUMP’S HARMFUL “PILGRIMAGE” TO DISGRACE, DISCREDIT AND DISUNITY

By

Harry C. Blaney III

Trump is back from his first trip as president but the harm he did on that trip has not ceased. Indeed it has increased with the recent decision to leave the Paris climate change accord. The reverberations from Europe and the Middle East continue. There is no place that he set font on tht did not create for security, unity ans stability of the global commons and our nations position in the world. Now it is far worse by Trump’s ignoring the great danger to the world which almost all nations recognize and followed the leadership of President Obama and many other nations. America has been diminished greatly by Trump’s incredible actions.

Given the reading I have done of European reactions both government and media and my recent visit to Europe we have lost greatly by Trump’s actions. We lost more in those short days than all the efforts of Putin and his Russian minions in the last decade trying to divide the West. One top headline of a writer for the Financial Times (a conservative paper) said ” Erratic Trump is destabilising the world.” Another affirmation of our loss is Germany’s leader Angela Merkel who has recently said, in effect, that Europe can’t trust the U.S. because of Trump. So much for “Making America Great.”

The recent dishonourable global travels of Donald Trump have resulted in more disgrace for America. The subtle and sometimes not so subtle rejection of Trump’s vision of a world enhanced by chaos through Trump’s often embrace of the worst behavior of dictatorships and brutal people of the world is but one example that has striped America of its credibility and respect.

This after revelations of more evidence that there could be evidence of collusion between the Trump associates and Russian agents, reports of efforts by him to sabotage the federal investigation of himself and his gang of incompetents. We see his continued lying and display of madness. We have him cutting American diplomacy and assistance budgets some 30% which belie anyone who thinks he takes our global challenges seriously. No interlocutors on this trip and his action on global warming can take what he says with believability and act on them and expect support.

His first stop in Saudi Arabia was a demonstration of the power of the mutual connivance between two forces of disruption, authoritarian rule and brutality. Not since the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact before WW II have we rarely seen such discredited leaders see their mutual interest in support of killing others, in ignoring discrimination against woman, and disparaging of democracy. On the part of Trump we saw acceptance of national Saudi leaders who’s funding and actions have help to fuel the spread of the extremist Islamist Wahhabi Salafist ideology that Trump once so vied against. Yes, we can call that hypocrisy.

While accepting the lavish opulence and honors of this dictatorial regime behind the brutal murder of thousands of civilians in Yemen via mostly in-discriminative bombing, which is against the law of war and humanitarian norms, Trump signed a $460 billion, ten year arms deal with Saudi Arabia. This will mean even more bombing, more conflict. It will help lead a mad arms race against Saudi Arabia’s main nemesis Iran. This will do nothing to assist a conciliation of the two main lines of Islam Sunni and Shia. This brutal theocracy oppresses its people and has spent billions of dollars exporting their extreme Wahhabi Islamic ideology around the world—the very same ideology fueling terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. His efforts to make worse the Sunni-Shia divide is putting America into a dark caldron of taking sides in Middle East religious conflict. His actions only support the concept that his aim is to create total chaos and keep the world off balance and demoralized.

The visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority was with the stated aim of bring the two together but it was clear that Trump was far more on the side of Israel but he recognized if he could create some agreement between the two sides it would be a “big win” for him but he does not have a clue of the key issues and does not seem to want to learn in any depth on this complex problem. In fact he walked away without a truly any specific breakthroughs.

The NATO Brussels visit was a total disaster and Trump talks and behavior was seen as causing much hurt to the alliance, which clearly frightened or allies and was criticized throughout European media. Not least is Trump’s decision not to mention NATO’s Article 5 of supporting a member country under attack. His nasty hectoring our allies on financial support for “NATO” was likely counter productive in the long run. The result was growing distrust of Trump thus of American commitment. One of the great historic blunders in the face of the Russian active efforts to undermine democracy and divide the Atlantic community.

His visit to see the Pope was almost surreal with Francis asking Trump, the instigator of actions and views antithetical to Christian beliefs let alone those of the Catholic church especially on dealing with the calamitous impact on all humanity of coming climate change. Nor was there any sign that Trump would respond to any peas for humanitarian actions to assist refugees.

The meeting in Sicily of the G-7 of the most powerful nations which include heads of state or Government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom and the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission who on their own without the United State reaffirmed their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement, “as previously stated at the Ise-Shima Summit.” This division was largely a first for the group and a sign of the disunity that will likely ensue. It was here that the disunity of the world community was most glaringly shown due to Trump rejection of action on climate change.

The sum of Trump’s action is that he has made America diminished and in greater danger from the external forces at work and made our adversaries more powerful and certainly Putin acts like he has a ”puppet” that has helped him achieve all he could not do on his own to advance Russian agenda to destroy the unity of the West.

We welcome you comments! See below comments section.

THE UNTOLD STORY OF YEMEN

By Harron Young 

Phot0: al jazeera

Civil war, hundreds of airstrikes a day, multiple players, and religious divide, yes this is Syria, but it is also Yemen, a country where the outcomes are just as devastating. With much of the world’s attention on Syria and Iraq, the lack of media attention to one of the most unfortunate civil wars, or more so proxy war, has failed to bring the news of Yemen to our TV screens and newspapers.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that 80% of the population requires some form of humanitarian protection or assistance, 48% of the humanitarian response is unmet, and 95% of the civilians, noncombatants, were killed from explosive weapons. Looking at the most basic issue in Yemen, we have a civil war with the North controlled by the Shi’a Houthi rebels, versus the Sunni majority in the South aligned with the internationally recognized government. Characterizing this as simply a Shi’a versus Sunni issue, or North versus South, barely scratches the surface in Yemen; within those sects of Islam, there is a deeper conflict including the Zaydis, a school of thought within Shi’a Islam, and Islah Islam, an opposition party that falls within Sunni Islam, this along with southern separatists, other militants, and religious extremist all involved in this conflict.

Backing these divided religious groups are Middle Eastern powerhouses such as Iran supporting the Houthis in the North, and a Saudi led coalition of Gulf Cooperation Council States (excluding Oman), further backed by the United States, in the South. As the Houthi rebel group represents a strong population of Shi’as in the North, they support the idea of a two-region state where they would dominate the North, and by January 2015, the Houthis demanded 50% of key ministerial position in the Yemeni government.

  Further conflict ensued when Saudi Arabia saw these demands, and Yemeni President Hadi forced from his palace in Sana’a by Houthi rebels, as Iranian interference in the region. In March of 2015, Saudi Foreign Minister declared that Saudi Arabia would protect the region from aggression, with the only solution being reinstating the internationally recognized government, and eliminating all Houthi rebels from any government institution they occupy. Almost ten months later, and Yemen has turned into a miserable war zone in which the death toll, amount of displaced people, and those facing food and water insecurity has escalated at a much faster rate than the chaos witnessed in Syria.

Although the Houthis have loosely been supported by Iran, they are not operating under its control and have been an independent political group before the outbreak of this civil war. Iran’s intervention in Yemen has only been an attempt to seize more influence in the region. Since Yemen is close to impenetrable, it is difficult to quantify what role Iran is playing in Yemen, with its only support being a supply of weapons to the Houthis; this comes as no surprise as Iran has a history of helping Shi’a minorities in the region.

The GCC countries, specifically Saudi Arabia, have stated their reasoning for intervening in Yemen while also carrying out a hidden agenda. This coalition claims their actions are answering the official request of the legitimate government of Yemen, protecting the Yemeni people, and fighting al-Qaeda and Daesh in the region. The events of the past ten months disprove these claims; so far, the Saudi led coalition has done nothing to stop al-Qaeda in Yemen.  The coalition has only hurt the civilian population in both the North and South from multiple airstrikes a day, and by establishing a blockade on the major ports in Yemen; this blockade has stopped the flow of food and resources in and out of the country. Although this blockade was done to protect the legitimate government from outside militias, this military tactic only cut off the civilian population from the rest of the world and vital resources needed for survival. Such ports are necessary as this country depends on imports for 70% of its fuel, 90% of its food, and 100% of its medicine, all now extremely limited in Yemen.

The number of casualties and injuries caused by explosive weapons in Yemen is the world’s highest, in which the all parties involved in this civil war are responsible for the unprecedented count of civilian suffering. In a September report done by the United Nations OCHA, when explosives are used, 86% of people killed are civilians and this number goes up to 95% in highly populated areas. Airstrikes were the single biggest danger to civilians in Yemen in the first seven months of 2015. Explosive weapons in Yemen have killed or injured more civilians this year than any other country in the world, including Syria. This is a blatant violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by all parties involved in the conflict; through the principles of proportionality, distinction, and precaution, all parties to the conflict are obligated to limit the loss of civilian life.

With the lack of coverage on Yemen, first hand depiction of this state is provided by aid organizations on the ground, all of which have been struggling to provide civilians with the most basic level of support. Reports from Oxfam International, a major organization coordinating relief effort in Yemen, have announced shockingly high numbers; close to 20 million people have no food or water security, about 1.5 million people from Yemen are displaced with about 100,000 refugees in Somaliland or Djibouti, making Yemen one of the worst crisis in the world. Such destruction to the infrastructure and civilian population as a whole may be attributed to ground fighting and airstrikes. Indiscriminate bombings by both opposing parties have targeted all governorates in Yemen and have been happening 100 to 150 times a day for the past nine months. In total, this conflict has killed around 5,800 people since March, including 830 women and children, according to the UN. Not only is Yemen completely underfunded in terms of aid organizations being able to provide support to civilians, but the lack of media coverage on this war has failed to put a face to those suffering in this conflict.

The many states actively playing a role in this civil war have only perpetuated the situation, leaving unprotected civilians at the forefront of the destruction. If human rights violations and war crimes are not enough to bring this situation to the attention of the global community, then U.S. involvement in this war should also be noted. Although the United States does not have ground troops in Yemen, they have provided the Saudi led coalition with funding, weapons, and intelligence. A report done by the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy reported that the U.S. has $49 billion worth of new agreements of arms sales with Saudi Arabia, this along with $60 billion in weapons and intelligence last year. Second to Saudi Arabia in amount of weapons received by the U.S, is the United Arab Emirates, which received 1,600 guided bomb units that were explicitly used in Yemen. Although the National Security Council has called for the defense of the Saudi Arabian border and the Department of State has shared concern of aggressive actions by the Houthis, the helicopters, combat aircrafts, and missiles supplied by the U.S. to the Saudi led coalition have greatly contributed to the humanitarian catastrophe occurring in Yemen. In response to this, the National Security Council stated that, “the United States has no role in targeting decisions made by the coalition in Yemen.” Such actions have been addressed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who accused all parties involved in Yemen, including the U.S, as responsible for the harm civilians in Yemen are facing.

The Obama administration has received backlash from such actions as 13 members of Congress (led by Reps. Dingell, Ellison, and Lieu) sent a letter to President Obama calling on the administration to urge Saudi Arabia to better protect innocent lives. This letter appropriately stated that “when U.S. weapons and intelligence are utilized, the decision to conduct an airstrike should correspond to the standards that would apply to any U.S. military operation.” Regardless, the United States continues to support the actions of the Saudi led coalition in Yemen, when instead the U.S. should be pushing their allies towards peace talks and humanitarian relief efforts. The United States must also be concerned with extremists, such as al-Qaeda, that has already captured much of the southeast province Hadramawt, and now a have a strong hold in Yemen due to the instability in the state and lack of military focus on eliminating the terrorist group by the Saudi led coalition.

This conflict in Yemen has only been getting worse, and looking forward will drive Yemen further into state failure if a ceasefire and resolution are not met. Currently, Yemen is attempting a second round of peace talks taking place in Switzerland, as their first national dialogue failed in 2014. Such peace talks only consist of Yemeni nationals, the Hadi government, the Houthi rebels, and the general People’s Congress, with no foreign states involved. This is a major step in the right direction as a political solution that addresses reunifying the country and preventing further casualties is the only way to end the crisis. For the success of the peace talks, and ultimately relief to the Yemeni people, a ceasefire must be initiated and followed by the Saudi led coalition, something the U.S. should push their allies to do. If and when a political solution happens, what is equally if not more important is a plan for the day after. A “day after” plan must ensure the agreements of such peace talks are met and humanitarian and infrastructure assistance is provided. This plan must build up the civil society, as a stronger and unified Yemeni military and local police force is necessary to eliminate extremist in the region. As the country becomes safer from lack of constant airstrikes, aid organizations and the Yemeni government will have to work endlessly to rebuild demolished infrastructure such as homes, schools, and water and sanitation systems. A political solution and the plans following will not be easy, much closer to impossible if anything, but the well being and safety of the Yemeni people, along with global security, desperately depend on a ceasefire and unified government in Yemen.

IRAN DEAL AS OUTLINED IN “FRAMEWORK” ACCORD IS A “WIN-WIN” FOR ALL BUT SIGNIFICANT BEYOND ITSELF

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry face both criticism and support as the framework for the Iranian Nuclear Deal falls into place.

“The notion that Iran is undeterrable–it’s simply not the case. And for us to say, ‘Let’s try’–understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that were not naive–but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be more secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place…We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”   

-President Obama in an interview with New York Time’s op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman on the risks of the Iran Nuclear Deal, published April 6, 2015

---

By: Harry C. Blaney III

In many ways this “framework” agreement achieves the key necessary elements for assurance against any Iranian unknown nuclear “breakout.” It provides the basis for future initiatives that might, with great focus and a large amount of wisdom and patience by all sides, move some of the destructive dynamics in the region towards some measure of reconciliation and what we used to call ‘detente.” Yet, from the cries from its critics at home, the hysterical opposition of Netanyahu and his right-wing supporters, and some in the Sunni Gulf States, there is still a lot of hefty lifting to do to sell this effort by President Obama and Secretary John Kerry at home and abroad.

The road towards the final text and agreement may still produce some bumps, but the key signal is that both sides want and need an agreement that puts to rest the dangers of both the Iranian weapons program and the likely dangers of a non-agreement for a long period. This agreement also can set the stage, with some luck, for other measures of dialogue and possible understandings that might serve American interests in achieving a more general security landscape for all nations in the region.

While right now this seems a very difficult task given the convulsions now seen,  for that very reason it is one that needs to be undertaken and likely may take years or even a decade to come fully to fruition.

The domestic opposition comes from the same expected right-wing neo-cons and Republicans hawks that seem to think that anything short of bloody war is unacceptable.  Would they put American troops on the ground in Iran? Would they have us bomb Iran to smithereens for Israel’s own misguided right wing war-hawks or to help facilitate a mad joint attack?  They have not said about “then what” because there is no good answer or outcome of that option. They talk in vague generalities and provide no clear security and mutual accommodation path towards stable peace in the Middle East, but indeed seem to want added conflict and chaos.

President Obama already has indicated he will “consult” with Congress. But sadly, it is likely that the diehards on the right of the GOP and even some Democrats will be seen as skeptical to appease their paymasters and crazies in deadly opposition to Obama no matter what is in the agreement. The key now is to stop any effort to pass a new sanctions bill on Iran or one that would require Congressional agreement to the final accord. There is a long history of such international agreements by both Republican and Democrat presidents. If this had been Ronald Reagan, the Republicans would be praising the hell out of this accord.

Obama holds hopefully the high card here as, in the end, he can veto any bill that tries to destroy this agreement. Obama will need to work hard to get enough support in Congress to prevent the dismantling of the agreement.  It will be a very hard hill to climb to get them to agree to revoking sanctions. However, there are other avenues to this end via Presidential actions, our cooperative allies, and the UN Security Council.

The problem with getting understanding, let alone agreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that the whole justification of his regime is to maintain a constant state of aggression and antipathy against the Palestinians and Iran. While there is some understanding for this given the past, it is a counterproductive stance if one wants long-term peace and security for all in the region. It is doubtful that Bibi will relent and may likely employ his minions in the U.S. to fight this accord no matter the circumstances.

Yet, many supporters of Israel know that an agreement that ensures a de-nuclearized Iran for a long period of time, the full engagement of the U.S. in the region, and the creation of a true peace deal, is in the real interests of Israel and the required two-state agreement. The former security officials of Israel know that it is unfortunate that Bibi only cares about his own political future, rather than his people and keeping Israel’s state security free from continued threats and the escalation of military capabilities.  While some kind of reconciliation with the U.S. would be hoped for, it is for Bibi to make the first move given his continued intransigency and duplicitous behavior. Yet, in some way the administration needs badly to make clear to Israel’s citizens that this agreement is in their interest, that we care about and support their security, and want and will still seek a peaceful region. For that, we are already rethinking our stance in the region and paths towards some kind of firm of peace settlement.

The other task is to get the support of the American people and our allies as to the benefits of this agreement. Most of the public has little knowledge of the issues, the trade-offs, and the importance of this agreement. This needs to change. Administration leaders need to get on the airwaves to argue for this accord. Obama can expect widespread conservative and right-wing media opposition from the likes of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the talking nuts on radio. This will be hard to overcome unless the administration, experts in the area, and Democratic politicians do a full court press on the merits of this accord with the media. On their side is the polls show most Americans do not want to make war with Iran.

On the issue of dealing with the largely Sunni Gulf States and in particular Saudi Arabia, the president has invited the leaders of these states this Spring to Camp David.  Already Saudi King Salman has taken a less confrontational position and has said to Obama that he hoped it would strengthen “stability and security in the region.” The discussion will include not only the new agreement, but likely an attempt to get some measure of wide cooperation on a strategy that will also address other security concerns in the region, as well as to see if a path is possible for some measure of cooperation and meeting of the minds between Sunni and Shia nations. This is but only one step towards a more stable region, but it is one of the key building blocks in a very complex region filled with conflict and mutual animosity that needs to be addressed.

In the end, we and our allies will need to talk to both leaders of Sunni and Shia nations as there are already signs of common interest in putting down ISIS’s universal butchery towards both Sunni and Shia as well as other minorities and in bringing stability and economic prosperity to the entire region. This is a job for more than one administration and America had better be wise in its future choice of its own leaders.

We welcome your comments!

A version of this essay was also carried at the London School of Economics and Political Science Web Blog. Visit the Link Here:  http://bit.ly/1HM1Toi

SYRIA UP-DATE: AFTER GENEVA II, THEN WHAT?

SYRIA UP-DATE: AFTER GENEVA II, THEN WHAT?

by

Harry C. Blaney III

 

President Obama in Washington during the visit of France’s president Hollande, has said that he was fairly pessimistic about progress in gaining peace and a transitional government in Syria. There are indications that the administration is engaged somewhat in new thinking about the Syrian conflict problem. But Obama indicated that use of military force was not at the top of options.

Meeting in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande criticized Russian aims to block the resolution. Hollande said, “Why would you prevent the vote of a resolution if, in good faith, it is all about saving human lives?”

Obama said the U.S. isn’t moving closer to taking military action in Syria even with the stalemate in the fighting and concerns about missed deadlines on chemical weapons destruction. Specifically, he noted at a joint news conference with French President Francois Hollande in the East Room of the White House: “We still have a horrendous situation on the ground in Syria.” He added that the state of Syria is “crumbling” and “extremists have moved into the vacuum in a way that could threaten us over the long term.”

 

While saying he reserves the right to use military force, Obama said that “right now we don’t think that there’s a military solution, per se, to the problem.” At the news conference Obama called Russia a “holdout” and accused it of complicity in the Syrian regime’s policy of starving cities. “They cannot say that they are concerned about the well-being of the Syrian people when they are starving civilians, and that it is not just the Syrians that are responsible, the Russians, as well, if they are blocking this kind of resolution,” Obama said.

 

On the diplomatic front, The U.S. supports the new draft UN Security Council resolution because it is clear that prior efforts aren’t yielding the needed progress.

 

Yet, the reality is that the U.S. and also France, Britain, and other key involved allied states are in a odd of state of denial of on the ground realities but also in a true conundrum about what is possible, likely outcomes and risks of using either military resources or a concerted series of “sticks” like new sanctions and denial to the Assad regime of access to funds and military imports.

 

Some insight into administration thinking was revealed in a White House briefing at the time of the Holland visit. The briefing was by a “Senior Administration Official” but the views are authoritative: He said, “Well, on Syria, I think what we have sought to do is work on a number of lines of effort with countries like France that share a common view of the situation with us. One is how can we increase humanitarian assistance that can reach the Syrian people? And the U.S. is the single largest donor of humanitarian aid, but we also work with other countries to make sure that we are meeting humanitarian requirements articulated by the U.N., and that different countries are providing different types of assistance that meet the greatest needs inside of Syria.

 

“We’ve also been talking with the French and others about steps that the U.N. Security Council can continue to take to promote humanitarian access inside of Syria.  I’m sure that will be an area of discussion.

 

“We’ve also worked with the French to coordinate our support for the moderate opposition within Syria.  And we obviously provide a range of support, as well as a number of other countries that have worked together over the course of the last year or so.  And so, I think discussing how we can work together to strengthen a more moderate opposition, both to be a counterpoint, obviously, to the Assad regime, but also to isolate extremist elements inside of Syria that could ultimately pose a threat to France and the United States as well.  So I’m sure we’ll discuss how do we continue to support that moderate opposition.

 

“That’s directly relevant to the Geneva II process, because that opposition has come to the table quite constructively in Geneva II.  And as we work through that process towards a transitional governing authority, the more we are speaking with one voice in support of an outcome that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people I think the stronger that opposition will be at the table.  So we’ll want to discuss that issue as well.

 

“On Lebanon, we do regularly talk to the French about the situation in Lebanon.  The United States has taken some steps in recent months to increase our assistance to the Lebanese armed forces and to continue to speak up for the unity of Lebanon and for a peaceful resolution of political differences within Lebanon.

 

“Given France’s history, I’m sure it is quite likely that Lebanon may come up as a topic.  And, frankly, it comes up in the context of Syria, because many of the challenges we see in Lebanon are spillover from Syria, both because of the significant refugee population inside of Lebanon because of the role of Lebanese Hezbollah in supporting the Assad regime, which has been obviously quite destabilizing and concerning to us, and also because some of the violence that has found its way into Lebanon. So we will I think be addressing the situation in Lebanon as related to the ongoing crisis in Syria.”

 

Let me be a bit blunt, much of this briefing is opaque in terms of the reality, and otherwise fairly well known about ongoing actions. What is missing is a clear statement and agreed strategy for path toward a realistic and definitive solution to the ongoing killings and establishing some sense of security and stability and a measure of peace in the Syria and nearby neighborhood. There is a clear debate going on, and there is now more recognition by the White House, State and DOD that other tools including possible military action may be needed. This includes an added supply of weapons, and less likely but key for security of the populations, creation of some kind of “no fly zone(s) and secure areas” for the displaced population, and as I have suggested, the insertion at some point of multilateral peacekeeping forces to ensure security and stability.

 

Yet, the end game must include diplomacy. This means uniting the moderate opposition forces, getting Assad to step down, and assuring the Shia that they will be secure and be part of the new transitional government. It also means facing the Russians and getting them to accept the new order. But that can only be done in a context where Assad and the Russian realize their goals can’t be realized. And that can only take place in reality on the ground in Syria.  

 

In addition to this White House briefing the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said in an e-mailed statement. “The Security Council needs to speak with one voice in the interest of the innocent men, women and children of Syria whose lives are hanging in the balance……. Every day the Council remains silent, we let down the Syrian people, and we fail to uphold our role as guardians of international peace and security.” A fine statement but, again, with no effective path to stop the killing or to get to the humanitarian needs.

 

On Wednesday February 12th, Russia said it would veto a U.N. resolution on humanitarian aid access in Syria if it remains in its current form. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said about the draft that its “aim is to create grounds for future military action against the Syrian government.” Thus, an impasse seems to be developing which may have to lead to new thinking on next steps. These next steps can be both diplomatic and economic but also taken through the use of limited but significant coercive action by a multilateral coalition of those nations supporting the opposition. The question remains do the key states have the political will and resources to act with a high level of assurance that they can be assured of success?

 

Frankly, it remains somewhat unclear whether and when any new strategy will emerge. However, the humanitarian crisis seems to be getting worse each day. Any promises by Assad are hollow given their detention of people leaving Homs and possible killings of civilians under supposed Syrian Red Cross and UN protection. The use of “barrel” bombs on civilians is Assad’s answer to the diplomacy tract at the moment.

 

The most recent development has been the dismissal of the commander of the Free Syrian Army and his replacement by another commander by the U.S. backed Supreme Military Council. It is reported that this has split the various commands on the ground, some of which still support the previous head. The new commander Abdul -Ilah al-Bahir is said to be backed by Saudi Arabia and may of the confidence of the U.S. But this act only highlights the many splits in the opposition and the difficulties of getting assistance to the opposition forces on the ground. Further, America appears directly looking at delivery of arms to filed commanders, but so far none have been reported by those commanders.

 

The situation on the ground is having more impact at the moment than the diplomacy in Geneva. For the moment, Assad’s forces and air force are pounding opposition centers and trying to close the borders against movement of opposition forces and refugees.

  

In sum, we need to keep the diplomatic tract open but also to think better of ways to exert real leverage over both Assad and even Russia. Those who are critical, including myself, need to keep in mind the high level of complexity, many risks of various actions, and the uncertainty of a good outcome. Yet from this writer’s perspective, we do have more tools than we are using. But such efforts require a high level of cooperation among the allies and opposition, good will, and resources than have been realized so far.