If The Obama Administration Doesn't Understand Syria's Dictator is No Sensitive Westernized Wimp, It Understands Nothing

This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin

Why was Egyptian President Husni Mubarak so evil in the eyes of the Obama Administration while Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seems to enjoy endless indulgence?

If you cannot explain this fact then the current government's policy cannot be justified in terms of U.S. interests. And if the media and most "experts" were not solidly soft on the incumbents that policy would be torn to shreds and help up to public ridicule.

Consider this simple comparison

Mubarak: Ally of America; Assad: Enemy of America

Mubarak: Enemy of Iran; Assad: Ally of Iran

Mubarak: Fights revolutionary Islamism; Assad: Sponsors revolutionary Islamism

Mubarak: Opposes international terrorism; Assad: Sponsors international terrorism

Mubarak: At Peace with Israel; Assad: At War with Israel

Mubarak: Supports peace process; Assad: Sabotages peace process

Mubarak: Repressive; Assad: Extremely repressive

Mubarak: Dictatorship with some pluralism; Assad: Total dictatorship

Mubarak: Mixed economy; Assad: Largely Soviet-style statist economy

Mubarak: Limited reforms; Assad: No reforms at all

Obama Response to Egypt Upheaval: Mubarak must go! Yesterday isn't soon enough!

Obama Response to Syria Upheaval: I'm sure if we show a little patience and understanding Bashar will show himself the Westernized, sensitive reformer we expect him to be.

Well, you get the idea.

No matter how much you favored the overthrow of the Mubarak government and the success of that revolution, you should support all the more the overthrow of a worse government that is far more hostile to the United States and the West.

And yet there is this bizarre illusion in the Obama Administration that somehow--despite two years of total failure by American flattery and concessions to get Assad to do anything, anything!--he's a good guy.

And despite the fact that he's shot down hundreds of demonstrators--more than Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen put together--the most minor response is acceptable.

The failure of the Obama Administration effort to engage the UN human rights council is shown by that body's total uselessness in dealing with Middle Eastern dictatorships. No, it's worse! It's largely comprised of Middle Eastern and other dictatorships.

Here's an administration official quoted in the New York Times on these points:

"Administration officials say that while they lack many effective economic tools, they believe Mr. Assad is sensitive to portrayals of his regime as brutal and backward. `He sees himself as a Westernized leader,' one senior administration official said, `and we think he’ll react if he believes he is being lumped in with brutal dictators.'”

Is this for real? How cannot one be sarcastic and hypercritical when leading U.S. officials think that a ruthless dictator--in fact, the most cleverly ruthless dictator in the Arabic-speaking world--really cares if people in the West say mean things about him.

Look, anyone who has read any of Bashar's speeches and watched his action should know that the exact opposite is true. He knows he looks like a giraffe and has a most non-macho past. He has based his career on trying to be like his father, tougher than his father. Bashar has constantly posed as the toughest of the tough, the patron of Hamas and Hizballah, the chief resister who taunts Israel and spits in the face of Uncle Sam.

It would be impossible to find someone more eager to be a brutal dictator and who does not see himself as a Westernized leader. If this were the "Godfather," Bashar would be Michael, not Fredo.

If the Obama Administration doesn't understand this, it understands nothing. Yes, that's the point. It understands nothing.

And if they still don't get it, let them examine this graphic illustration by Martin Berman-Gorvine, done specially for Rubin Reports:

P.S.: In an interview with a Los Angeles Times correspondent covering the upheaval in Syria, the NPR host and the journalist tried desperately buf futilely to find some way to excuse Bashar of blame for the killing of demonstrators. Perhaps he didn't have enough riot control gear or someone else gave the orders? Truly amazing apologetics. With Israel's they act like a lynch mob, with Syria like a groupie. How revealing.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Hillary Stamps Her Foot; Dictators Laugh

This article is published in PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday condemned violence in Syria and said the Syrian government must stop the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of prisoners."

There's a problem with that word "must." See, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot help overthrow or move away from allies, stress your own weakness, decry your past leadership and use of violence, and appease radicals without losing a certain amount of credibility.

What's the United States going to do if the Syrian regime continues arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of prisoners? Isn't Hillary Clinton the person who called Syria's dictator a reformer? Isn't head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and potential next secretary of state John Kerry praising the repressive Syrian dictatorship?

Didn't the U.S. government abandon Lebanon to Syrian control? Help consolidate the rule of Syrian client Hamas in the Gaza Strip? Make clear its strong criticism and limited backing for Israel? Rush to bring down the regime in Syria's main Arab rival, Egypt?

Hasn't it tightened relations with Syria despite that regime's human rights violations, sponsorship of terrorism, and even involvement in murdering Americans in Iraq?

So why the [expletives deleted] should Syria's anti-American, Iran-backed, dictatorship care about such people telling it what it "must" do?

What will the Obama Administration do if Syria's regime shoots 500 or 1000 opponents? Issue a press release?

Even warnings from experienced U.S. diplomats and advice from senior military officers have been largely ignored.  Everyone in the Middle East--and all too few in the White House--understand how totally ridiculous this government appears in the region.

U.S. Policy in the Middle East: Moderates Cry; Radicals Laugh

By Barry Rubin

In the United States, the sending of a U.S. ambassador to Syria is presented as a normal act, not a concession. That's not the way it is being seen in Syria. In the United States, the issuing of statements favoring Lebanese sovereignty is seen as an effective policy. That's not the way it is seen in Syria and Lebanon.

Or as an unidentified, but presumably Syrian, official put it:

"Obama went out of his way to send [a new ambassador]. He will be expecting something in return. Lebanon is an obvious area but the Syrians realize that the United States does not have much more to pressure them with," another diplomat said.


"Syrian political commentator [i.e., lackey of the dictatorship] Ayman Abdel Nour said Damascus was not averse to compromise if it felt the United States was lessening support for an international tribunal on the Hariri killing, which Syria views as a tool in the hands of its foes.

"`The United States is keeping the tribunal card close to its chest. But Syria is stronger on the ground in Lebanon,'" Abdel Nour said. He dismissed the possibility of Washington resuming a policy of internationally isolating Syria because Damascus has built ties with countries such as its northern neighbor Turkey."

In other words, Syria is strong; America is weak; Syria can do as it pleases with no additional cost.  If the United States drops support for the international tribunal finding  Syrian and Hizballah terrorism in Lebanon, Syria will then...not give anything back.

This is the gap between Washington--and America in general--which believes Obama is doing a terrific job in the Middle East, and the actual Middle East where the moderates are crying and the radicals are laughing.

And don't forget:

Hizballah seizes power in Lebanon, U.S. policy has no effective response.

U.S. policy helps Hamas entrench itself in the Gaza Strip (by providing indirect aid and pressing Israel to reduce sanctions).

In Egypt, the emphasis of U.S. policy is to press the regime into potentially fatal concessions.

Plus more. The radicals know what they are talking about.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Are U.S. Officials Understanding and Responding to Middle East Crises? Ya Think?

Please be subscriber 17,778 (and daily reader 19,278). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

If you've lost faith in the current administration's ability and mass media's ability to respond to Middle East developments, here's more evidence. There's a relatively new American idiomatic expression, "Ya [you] think?" Said sarcastically, it means: Wow, duh, the answer to that question is really obvious!

So consider how hidden, obscure stories [sarcasm] are being dug out by policymakers and top media. The New York Times reports that the U.S. government is "increasingly alarmed by unrest in Lebanon, whose own fragile peace is being threatened by militant opponents of a politically charged investigation into the killing in 2005 of a former Lebanese leader."

Ya think? Lebanon has been taken over (or recaptured, if you wish) by the Iran-Syria anti-American, revolutionary Islamist, terrorist-sponsoring axis, operating largely--though by no means completely--through their client, Hizballah. Might this be of some concern for U.S. policymakers?

Four years ago, Lebanon was run by an independent-minded, pro-Western government that would have preferred peace with Israel (though it knew domestic pressures made any such action impossible), opposed Iran, and saw radical Islamism as its antagonist. Today, Lebanon has been "lost" in large part through Western (don't forget France's responsibility) weakness and inaction.

I predict that even on this latest point the administration is wrong. There isn't going to be any big conflict over any report that the Syrians murdered former Prime Minister Rafiq Harari. Everybody in Lebanon knows that Syria did so, possibly (though this is far less certain) with Hizballah's help.

But there won't be any problem if the UN-backed investigation publicly states this because everyone in Lebanon has also been intimidated into silence. Even Harari's own son, the most important Sunni Muslim leader and head of the Sunni-Christian-Druze [well, no longer Druze since they have joined the pro-Syrian side for all practical purposes] has surrendered to Damascus.

And of course there remains the question of what, if anything, this administration will do about Lebanon. Answer: Nothing, except continue to aid the army which, at best, is neutral and, at worst, is an ally of Hizballah.

Speaking of Syria and great discoveries. The Washington Post reports that Syria just doesn't seem to be responding to administration efforts to engage, moderate, and pull that country out of Iran's orbit.

Ya think?

During the last almost two years there has been example after example of Syria opposing all aspects of U.S. policy; sponsoring terrorism to kill Americans in Iraq and against Israel; sabotage the Israel-Palestinian peace process; dominate Lebanon; help Hamas and Hizballah; and build an ever-tighter alliance with Iran.

And now people in Washington are starting to notice this? So what will the administration do, end engagement with Syria and take a tough line? Ya think?

Should I mention the blindness towards the Turkish regime's entrance into the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah bloc, and the need for U.S. opposition to that government to help ensure its defeat in next year's election? Hint: In an interview Republican People's Party leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu states, "Washington is just beginning to wake up to the true nature" of the current regime. If that government ever does, it will understand that victory for Kilicdaroglu is a vital U.S. interest.

Should I mention that nothing could be more obvious than the fact that the Israel-Palestinian negotiations process is going to go nowhere because the Palestinian Authority doesn't want to make a deal with Israel. And then add that this problem is being exacerbated by U.S. policy making the PA believe this strategy can succeed fully by getting recognition for a unilateral declaration of independence?

Should I mention the new U.S. policy of engaging the Taliban is disastrous and may result in the movement that partnered the September 11 attacks against America returning to power? The New York Times published an anthropologists' op-ed explaining how the United States can coopt the Taliban and turn it against al-Qaida! Ya think?

But don't take my word for it. Ask the would-be Times Square bomber who worked with that group, or a teenager who describes how the Taliban tried to recruit him as a suicide bomber (something it will be able to do to lots more youth if it can operate legally.

And here's what New York Times reporter David Rhode wrote after spending several months as a Taliban prisoner in 2009: "Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of `al-Qaeda lite'...primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan. Living side by side with the[m], I learned that the goal [was]...to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world." Ya think?

Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?

Should I mention that most Arab governments are shocked at U.S. expressions of weakness and want a strong American policy to protect them from Iran and revolutionary Islamists?

Should I mention that despite the praiseworthy (but overdue) increase in anti-Iran sanctions there's no doubt that Tehran will get nuclear weapons and this development will transform the strategic balance in the region?

Should I mention that the administration doesn't react to its own intelligence which shows Iran is helping kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan through training terrorists and supplying both advisors and military equipment in both countries?

Eighteen months ago I laid out all of these points in detail and pointed out the needed U.S. policy to respond. Every one of these issues has developed predictably since then.

Anybody in the U.S. government noticing these things and perhaps getting prepared to do something about them?

Ya think?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

After Leaking Syria Didn't Give Missiles to Hizballah, The State Department Wakes Up and Condemns the Syrian Regime

By Barry Rubin

Better late than never. But what is the Obama Administration going to do about? Note that this is said to be the fourth violation. Stay tuned for the fifth, sixth, and so on, all having no effect on the attempt to "engage" Syria.

"For Immediate Release April 19, 2010/2010/480

"STATEMENT BY DEPUTY SPOKESMAN GORDON DUGUID

"The most senior Syrian diplomat present in Washington today, Deputy Chief of Mission Zouheir Jabbour, was summoned to the Department of State to review Syria’s provocative behavior concerning the potential transfer of arms to Hizballah. This was the fourth occasion on which these concerns have been raised to the Syrian Embassy in recent months, intended to further amplify our messages communicated to the Syrian government. Our dialogue with Syria on this issue has been frank and sustained. We expect the same in return.

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms the transfer of any arms, and especially ballistic missile systems such as the SCUD, from Syria to Hizballah. The transfer of these arms can only have a destabilizing effect on the region, and would pose an immediate threat to both the security of Israel and the sovereignty of Lebanon. The risk of miscalculation that could result from this type of escalation should make Syria reverse the ill-conceived policy it has pursued in providing arms to Hizballah. Additionally, the heightened tension and increased potential for conflict this policy produces is an impediment to on-going efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. All states have an obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to prevent the importation of any weapons into Lebanon except as authorized by the Lebanese Government.

"We call for an immediate cessation of any arms transfers to Hizballah and other terrorist organizations in the region. Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism is directly related to its support for terrorist groups, such as Hizbollah."

Note that some administration officials claim that Hizballah is no longer a terrorist group and that Syria hasn't sponsored terrorism in years. Hey, people, please get together and decide what you think please.

Syria Sends Long-Range Missiles to Hizballah But, Says State Department, Only "in part." So No Worries!

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.

By Barry Rubin

Once again, the Obama Administration has developed a new concept as an excuse for not taking action against a radical and aggressive action. Israel has charged on the basis of intelligence information--and the data in this kind of situation is excellent--that Syria has been shipping long-range missiles to Hizballah in Lebanon which can target Israeli cities. This has led to a raising of tensions and possibly might bring an Israeli air strike against the missiles.

Such an action is a clear violation of the U.S.-sponsored agreement ending the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war which dragged in Lebanon, of course, and resulted in much destruction there. This new development is thus a problem on the following grounds: it strengthens Hizballah, makes a future Hizballah attack on Israel more likely, makes an Israeli preemptive attack more likely, and emboldens Syria to violated agreements knowing the United States won't do anything.

This once again shows the trap involved in engaging dictators. No matter what Syria does--sending terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq being one item high on the list, moving closer to Iran, and so on--the U.S. government will turn a blind eye.

So the State Department has invented a new concept. Yes, missiles have been delivered, it explains, but only "in part." What does this mean? Perhaps the Syrians merely shipped Hizballah equipment or parts to repair and enhance missiles it delivered earlier in violation of the U.S.-sponsored ceasefire agreement. It is possible that it means the Syrians only delivered part of the number of missiles it promised.

What it comes down to is that the Syrians broke the agreement, says the State Department, but they didn't break it as much as they might have done. (Historical note: I can't help thinking of the Cuban missile crisis if, in 1962, the Kennedy Administration said that the Soviets had only shipped missiles to Cuba which could target the United States "in part," so it was ok.)

Bottom line: This is still a violation of the 2006 agreement but it allows the U.S. government to pretend nothing has happened and it need take no action. As I reported earlier, the French were clear on this issue and denounced the Syrian action. [Optional joke--Are the French now saying: The Americans have a cowardly foreign policy AND no good cheese?]

The problem here is not so much the specific issue but the basic principle: This administration won't enforce agreements, it won't hold radical states accountable for what they do, allies cannot rely on it to stand up for them, enemies know they can get away with a great deal.

Recently, U.S. officials have spoken about how certain situations in the Middle East lead to the death of U.S. soldiers or endanger them. The next time an American is killed or wounded in Iraq, note that they were probably short or blown up by terrorists who were financed, armed, and trained in Syria, giving safe haven in that country and passing through it to launch their murderous attacks.

Syria knows it can continue that activity at no cost, just as it can continue to seize power in Lebanon, back and arm Hamas to make Israel-Palestinian peace impossible, and keep tightening its alliance with Iran.

With each deed of appeasement or closing its eyes to aggression and terrorism, the current U.S. government is complicit in those developments.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Pardon Me, Obama Administration, But Isn't Your Policy on Fire?

By Barry Rubin

The story of the U.S. engagement with Syria and the sanctions issue regarding Iran’s nuclear program are fascinating. Each day there’s some new development showing how the Obama Administration is acting like a deer standing in the middle of a busy highway admiring the pretty automobile headlights.

Or to put it a different way, it is like watching the monster sneak up behind someone. Even though you know he’s not going to turn around, you can’t help but watch in fascinated horror and yelling out: “Look out!” But he pays no attention.

So I’m not just writing about these two issues in isolation but as very appropriate symbols of everything wrong with Western perceptions of the Middle East (and everywhere else) and the debates over foreign policy (and everything else) nowadays.

On Syria, for the most recent episodes of the story see here and here but, briefly, the Syrian government keeps punching the United States in the face as Washington ignores it.

But now, on March 1, a new record is set. The place: State Department daily press conference; the main character, departmental spokesman Philip J. Crowley. A reporter wants to know how the administration views the fact that the moment the U.S. delegation left after urging Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to move away from Iran and stop supporting Hizballah, Syria’s dictator invited in Iran’s dictator along with Hizballah’s leader and Damascus moved closer to Iran and Hizballah. Indeed, Asad said regarding Hizballah, "To support the resistance is a moral, patriotic and legal duty."



In other words, the exact opposite of what the United States requested. Is the government annoyed, does it want to express some anger or threat?so

Let’s listen:

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would point it in a slightly different direction. It came several days after an important visit to Damascus by Under Secretary Bill Burns….We want to see Syria play a more constructive role in the region. We also want – to the extent that it has the ability to talk to Iran directly, we want to make sure that Syria’s communicating to Iran its concerns about its role in the region and the direction, the nature of its nuclear ambitions….”

In other words, I’m going to ignore the fact that the first thing that Asad did after Burns’ visit was a love fest with Iran and Hizballah. But even more amazing, what Crowley said is that the U.S. government thinks Syria, Iran’s partner and ally, is upset that Iran is being aggressive and expansionist. And it actually expects the Syrians to urge Iran not to build nuclear weapons!

One Lebanese observer called this approach, “Living in an alternate universe.”

Meanwhile, as the administration congratulates itself on explaining to Syria that it should reduce support for Hizballah, Israeli military intelligence releases an assessment that Syria is giving Hizballah more and better arms than ever before.

Oh wait! Now it's March 3 so time for something new. The ófficial Syrian press agency reports that Syria's government opposed an Arab League proposal to support indirect Palestinian Authority-Israel negotiations. Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem asserted that Syria is "no way part" of the consensus supporting the plan.

But guess what? First, Senator John Kerry opened a meeting of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee by erroneously praising Syria as supporting the plan, giving this as an example of Damascus's  moderation. The New York Times quoted from the Syrian report, making it sound like Moallem is praising the United States, but left out the paragraphs attacking the U.S.-backed plan! And the State Department circulated the Times article as proof of its success in winning over Syria when in fact Syrian behavior proved the exact opposite!

Oh, and that's not all! Not only did Syria oppose the plan but it attacked the Arab states that supported the U.S. effort and blasted the Palestinian Authority for not following the path of resistance, that is urged it to carry out terrorist violence against Israel.

Hey, that's not all either. Syria also issued a statement accusing Israel of "framing" it by dropping uranium particles from the air to make it seem that Syria had been building a nuclear reactor for making nuclear weapons. Not exactly evidence of rational moderation I'd say.

Meanwhile, on the Iran front, it is now March 2010 and still—six months after the first administration deadline and three months after the second deadline—there are no additional sanctions on Iran yet. In fact, the process has barely started.

Even former Democratic presidential candidate and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has taken a stronger stance than the administration.

He supports the congressional call for tough sanctions to block Iran’s energy industry which easily passed both houses. “I believe that the most biting and important sanctions would be those on the energy side.” But the Obama administration wants far more limited sanctions focused on a small group in the regime elite.

Yet sanctions are getting further away rather than closer. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted at this by pulling back from her early prediction of sanctions by April, now saying it might be “some time in the next several months."

At the same time, we have endless evidence that the claim the Russians (and Chinese and others) are coming, to support sanctions, is nonsense. Just before meeting with Clinton to discuss the issue, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (or Lula for short) explained, "Peace in the world does not mean isolating someone." (Quick, invite him to explain this to the anti-Israel forces in Europe and elsewhere).

But it’s outright amusing to see the efforts to spin the Russian and Chinese position. In this regard, the prize for this week should be won by an AP dispatch. The headline is: “Russia moves closer to Iran sanctions over nukes.”

And what is the basis for this claim that there has just been “the strongest sign to date that the Kremlin was prepared to drop traditional opposition to such penalties if Tehran remain obstinate?” This statement from President Dmitry Medvedev:

“We believe that [engagement with Iran is] not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement," he said. "But if we don't succeed, Russia is ready — along with our partners…to consider the question of adopting sanctions."

Get it? When Russia decides that talking with Iran won’t work, then at that point—how long from now would that be?—it will “consider” sanctions. Actually, he said the same thing last August, a statement trumpeted in September by the New York Times as proving Obama’s policy was working.

There is more clarity with the Chinese, sort of, though the pretense is also made that they might do something. But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang put it this way: "We believe there is still room for diplomatic efforts and the parties concerned should intensify those efforts." At most, the optimists suggest, in the words of this Reuters dispatch:

“China will resist any proposed sanctions that threaten flows of oil and Chinese investments, but most believe it will accept a more narrowly cast resolution that has more symbolic than practical impact.”

Yes, that’s the kind of thing that already existed four years ago. Some progress.

Is it too much to ask policymakers to pay attention to what’s going on occasionally?

So let's leave it to Ahmadinejad to sum up how things seem to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and lots of Arabs both pro- and anti-American:

The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to escape.…The [American] government has no influence [to stop].…the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties--God willing, Iraq too will join the circle...."

In other words, Obama Administration policy isn't making the radicals more moderate but rather--by feeding their arrogance and belief in American weakness--making them more aggressive.

News Flash: U.S. Names New Ambassador to Syria Just After Anniversary of Major Syrian Terrorist Operation

By Barry Rubin

Yesterday I wrote a piece pointing to U.S. government insensitivity in giving Syria a big concession--the long-awaited naming of the new U.S. ambassador to Syria--virtually on the anniversary of Syria's assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a terrorist attack (a big bomb in the middle of a Beirut boulevard killing many bystanders). But in fairness I noted that it was a leak not an official announcement. Well, now just over 48 hours after the anniversary an official announcement has been made that Robert Ford, a career Middle East specialist for the State Department and now deputy chief of mission in Iraq, will be the first U.S. ambassador to Iran's closest ally, Syria. For the full analysis, see here

U.S. Marks Anniversary of Syrian Terrorist Act With Major Concession to Syria

Please subscribe for original coverage in real time

By Barry Rubin

Not all national disgraces appear in the headlines. February 14 was the fifth anniversary of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, an event which led to a national peaceful uprising in non-Hizballah Lebanon that forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops and produced the short-lived Beirut Spring.

As a result, a moderate, independent-minded, pro-Western government came to power which wanted to minimize Iranian, Syrian, and Hizballah power in the country. That government was essentially betrayed—perhaps let down is a better phrase—by the United States and France, given little support until its enemies who, on contrast, were fully backed by their friends in Tehran and Damascus, made a comeback and are back in the government coalition with veto power. As a result, Lebanon has made a considerable move toward Iran’s orbit.

The investigation of Hariri’s murder has led straight to the highest levels of the Syrian government as having put out the contract on Hariri’’s life, along with other terrorist attacks in Lebanon that killed several members of parliament and dozens of bystanders. But the investigation has faltered due to lack of Western backing.

So while President Barack Obama called Hariri’s son to say the United States wants to find the murderers and encourage the investigation his policies have been the exact opposite. The U.S. refusal to send a new ambassador to Syria has been a key sign of American anger over the murders and leverage to press Syria toward cooperation with the investigation.

Now, however, a high-ranking U.S. official on that very anniversary has leaked that the United States has now made a significant concession to Syria by naming its first ambassador to Syria since that envoy was withdrawn after Hariri’s murder. A State Department official said that the Syrian government has accepted the U.S. candidate though we don’t yet know who is the choice.

True, this was not an official public announcement. But the fact is that everyone now knows that the decision has been made and the arrangements all put in place. Nobody in Washington will notice that this timing sends a signal to independent-minded Lebanese that the United States wants to forget about Hariri’s murder, accept Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah as holding Lebanon hostage and moving closer to making it a satellite.

Last autumn, the Obama Administration decided not to put defensive missiles into the Czech Republic and Poland on September 17, the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. This is a similar action.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Obama's General Says: Syria Allied with Al-Qaida, Attacking U.S.; White House Says: Is that a Problem?

[Please subscribe for writing on the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, satire, history, what's happening in American schools and more]

By Barry Rubin

Does anyone read the newspapers in the U.S. government? How about checking out the dispatches coming from its generals in the field? Here’s a news story which tells all.

A Reuters’ dispatch from Iraq interviews the commander of U.S. forces there. What’s he say?

Al-Qaida is joining forces with Saddam Hussein’s supporters.

And where are both al-Qaida’s forces fighting in Iraq and Saddam’s backers headquartered with lots of money stolen from Iraq? Syria.

Syria? So Damascus is now allied with al-Qaida, the perpetrators of the September 11 attack to kill Americans and defeat the United States in Iraq? Is that right, general?:

“Investigations into massive suicide bombings in Baghdad on Oct. 25, in which more than 150 people died, indicated that explosives or fighters were coming across from Syria, U.S. General Ray Odierno also said.”

So, again, Syria is letting al-Qaida and Saddamist terrorists come in, get armed and trained, cross the border in Iraq, and run back for safe haven. Right, general?:

“The U.S. commander's comments reinforced accusations by the government of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that al Qaeda and former Baathists were working together to undermine improved security and elections expected to be held in January. Maliki's government has also accused neighboring Syria of giving a safe haven to Baathists plotting attacks in Iraq.”

Yes, that’s what I said, right? And do remember that the Obama Administration has refused to support Iraq’s complaints against Syria. Are the Syrians helping kill a lot of people?:

“Overall violence in Iraq has fallen sharply in the past 18 months and November so far has experienced one of the lowest civilian casualty levels since the 2003 U.S. invasion. But attacks by suspected Sunni Islamist insurgents like al Qaeda remain common. The twin suicide bombings in Baghdad on Oct. 25 devastated the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad governorate headquarters, while two similar suicide bombings on Aug. 19 killed almost 100 people at the foreign and finance ministries.”

So violence is continuing. As U.S. forces withdraw someone is trying to wreck the situation there so that the U.S. departure looks like defeat. Wonder who?

"`We believe that there will be attempts to conduct more attacks between now and the elections because they want to destabilize those,’ Odierno said.”

And who might be making those attacks, general?

"`My experience is there probably was some movement of fighters or explosives coming from Syria,’" he said when asked if the investigations had indicated any links to Syria.”

Thank you. So, the Obama Administration’s military commander says Syria is behind massive attacks and working closely with Usama bin Ladin’s guys.

Has the president of the United States said anything about this? Has he made any criticism of Syria? Is he ready to break off engagement efforts with the dictatorship? Has he backed up Iraqi government requests for backing in demanding Syria stop facilitating such attacks and turn over those Iraqis responsible?

No, no, no, and again no.

If the Obama Administration is fighting a war against al-Qaida why is Syria, today that group‘s main organizational and military base in the Middle East getting away with allying to the people who murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11?

If the Obama Administration is fighting a war in Iraq why is it doing nothing about the main ally of the insurgents killing American soldiers and so many Iraqi civilians, trying to wreck your policy?

Not to mention Syria trying to take over Lebanon, allying with Iran, sponsoring Hamas and Hizballah, being a major sponsor of international terrorism, and trying to build nuclear weapons’ facilities secretly?

There is an old expression about fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The Obama Administration is waging a foreign policy with both hands tied behind its back, plugs in its ears, and a gag over its mouth.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.