On the neocon list of ways to make the world safer for Israel, Iran originally occupied pride of place. “Real men go to Tehran!” was the muscular brag. But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was persuaded to acquiesce in a less ambitious plan — to “do Iraq” and remove the “evil dictator” in Baghdad first.
As the invaders/occupiers got bogged down in Iraq, it seemed more sensible to “do Syria” next. With the help of “friendly services,” the neocons mounted a false-flag chemical attack outside Damascus in late August 2013, blaming it on President Bashar al-Assad, whom U.S. President Barack Obama had earlier said, “had to go.”
Obama had called such a chemical attack a red line but, mirabile dictu, chose to honor the U.S. Constitution by asking Congress first. Worse still for the neocons, during the first days of September, Russian President Vladimir Putin pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire by persuading Syria to destroy its chemical weapons under U.N. supervision.
Obama later admitted that virtually all of his advisers had wanted him to order Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria.
Morose at CNN
I was lucky enough to observe, up-close and personal, the angry reaction of some of Israel’s top American supporters on Sept. 9, 2013, when the Russian-brokered deal for Syria to destroy its chemical weapons was announced.
After doing an interview in Washington on CNN International, I opened the studio door and almost knocked over a small fellow named Paul Wolfowitz, President George W. Bush’s former under-secretary of defense who in 2002-2003 had helped craft the fraudulent case for invading Iraq.
And there standing next to him was former Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut neocon who was a leading advocate for the Iraq War and pretty much every other potential war in the Middle East.
On the tube earlier, Anderson Cooper sought counsel from Ari Fleischer, former spokesman for Bush, and David Gergen, long-time White House PR guru.
Fleischer and Gergen were alternately downright furious over the Russian initiative to give peace a chance and disconsolate at seeing the prospect for U.S. military involvement in Syria disappear when we were oh so close.
The atmosphere on TV and in the large room was funereal. I had happened on a wake with somberly dressed folks (no loud pastel ties this time) grieving for a recently, dearly-departed war.
In his own interview, Lieberman expressed hope-against-hope that Obama would still commit troops to war without congressional authorization. I thought to myself, wow, here’s a fellow who was a senator for 24 years and almost our vice president, and he does not remember that the Founders gave Congress the sole power to declare war in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The evening of Sept. 9 was a bad one for more war and for pundits who like to joke about “giving war a chance.”
Menendez: ‘I Almost Vomited’
The neocons would face another humiliation three days later when The New York Times published an op-ed by Putin, who wrote of growing trust between Russia and the U.S. and between Obama and himself, while warning against the notion that some countries are “exceptional.”
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an Israeli favorite, spoke for many Washington insiders when he said: “I was at dinner, and I almost wanted to vomit.”
Menendez had just cobbled together and forced through his committee a resolution, 10-to-7, to authorize the president to strike Syria with enough force to degrade Assad’s military. Now, at Obama’s request, the resolution was being shelved.
Cui Bono?
That the various groups trying to overthrow al-Assad had ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort was clear. It was also quite clear that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area — then, and now.
NYT reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem had the lead article on Sept. 6, 2013, addressing Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s at the time two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome.
Rudoren wrote:
“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win, we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”
US Arming ‘Moderate Rebels’
Instead of Tomahawks, Obama approved (or winked at) covert action to topple Assad. That did not work out very well. An investment of $500 million to train and arm “moderate rebels” yielded only “four or five still in the fight,” as then-CENTCOM commander Gen. Lloyd Austin explained to Congress on Sept. 17, 2015.
In late September 2015 at the U.N., Putin told Obama that Russia is sending its forces into Syria; the two agreed to set U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov off to work out a ceasefire in Syria; they labored hard for 11 months.
A ceasefire agreement was finally reached and approved personally by Obama and Putin. The following list of events beginning in the fall of 2015 is instructive in considering how the revived conflict might work out (probably minus U.S.-Russian talks), if the ongoing jihadi attack on Syrian forces continues for more than a few weeks.
Does 2015 Chronology Foreshadow 2025?
Sept. 28, 2015: At the U.N., Putin tells Obama that Russia will start air strikes in Syria; invites Obama to join Russia in air campaign against ISIS; Obama refuses, but tells Kerry to get together with Lavrov to “deconflict” U.S. and Russian flights over Syria, and then to work hard for a lessening of hostilities and political settlement in Syria — leading to marathon negotiations.
Sept. 30, 2015: Russia starts airstrikes both against ISIS and in support of Syrian forces against rebels in Syria.
Oct. 1, 2015 to Sept. 9, 2016: Kerry and Lavrov labor hard to introduce ceasefire and some kind of political settlement. Finally, a limited ceasefire is signed Sept 9, 2016 — with the explicit blessing of both Obama and Putin.
Sept. 12, 2016: The limited ceasefire goes into effect; provisions include SEPARATING THE “MODERATE” REBELS FROM THE, WELL, “IMMODERATE ONES.” Kerry had earlier claimed that he had “refined” ways to accomplish the separation, but it did not happen; provisions also included safe access for relief for Aleppo.
Sept. 17, 2016: U.S. Air Force bombs fixed Syrian Army positions killing between 64 and 84 Syrian army troops, with about 100 others wounded — evidence enough to convince the Russians that a renegade Pentagon was intent on scuttling the ceasefire and meaningful cooperation with Russia AND FELT FREE TO DO SO AND THEN MERELY SAY OOPS, WITH NO ONE BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
Sept. 26, 2016: Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said:
“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. commander in chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the commander in chief.”
Lavrov went beyond mere rhetoric. He specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia, “after the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama stipulated that they would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”
Sept. 29, 2016: KERRY’S HUBRIS-TINGED FRUSTRATION: Apparently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, et al. had told Kerry it would be easy to “align things” in the Middle East.
And so, this is how Kerry started off his remarks at an open forum arranged by The Atlantic magazine and the Aspen Institute on Sept. 29, 2016. (I was there and could hardly believe it; it made me think that some of these stuffed shirts actually believe their own rhetoric about being “indispensable.”) Kerry said:
“Syria is as complicated as anything I have ever done in my public life in the sense that there are probably about six wars going on at the same time: Kurds against Kurds, Kurds against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni, Shia, everybody against ISIS, people against Assad, Al-Nusra…this is a mixed up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it is very difficult to be able to align forces.”
Ultimately, Syrian, Russian and Hezbollah forces beat back the jihadists and liberated Aleppo and other parts of the country in spite of U.S. opposition and are being called upon again now to do the same.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Consortium News.
