Obama's Collision Course with Russia

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 17, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

      Firing a shot across the bow, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich warned the U.S. to reconsider its plans to arm Syrian rebels and create a no-fly zone in Syria.  President Barack Obama’s June 13 decision to begin arming Syrian rebels didn’t sit well with Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially after Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed May 24 to hold a peace conference to deal with the Syrian crisis.  For over a year, conservatives on Capitol Hill, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), urged Obama to start bombing Syria to stop Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from slaughtering rebels trying to topple his government.  McCain had a kindred spirit in former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also backed military intervention against al-Assad, despite not knowing fully the identities of rebel forces.

          Since McCain first proposed bombing Syria March 5, 2012, not much was known about the nature of the revolt against Syria that started during the Arab Spring March 11, 2011.  Digging beneath the surface, it’s now known that the revolt is a Saudi-sponsored Sunni Wahhabi sectarian war against al-Assad’s Alawite minority Shiite regime.  Joining the battle against al-Assad are the same jihadists that toppled the World Trade Center Twin Towers and attacked the Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001.  Osama bin Laden’s ragtag band of Islamic fighters, that once battled the Soviets in Afghanistan, have joined other Saudi-backed groups to topple al-Assad.  Among those groups, former al-Assad ally Hamas leader in exile Khalid Meshaal, has joined the fight against Syria.  Apart from mounting casualties, now totaling by some estimates 93,000, Syria poses no national security threat to the United States.

        Obama promised in the 2008 campaign that, unlike former President George W. Bush, he would not embroil the U.S. in another war without a compelling national security risk.  Russia has made a compelling case to allow al-Assad to work out his sovereignty issues without outside interference from the U.S.  Russia and China have warned the U.S. that if al-Assad were toppled, Syria would become a free-for-all of various Islamist groups competing for control.  “I think we fundamentally will not allow this scenario,” said Lukashevich, referring to Russia’s firm opposition to any no-fly zone suggested by McCain and conservatives in Congress.  Lukashevich promised Russia would veto any U.N. Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone.  Obama’s decision to arm Syrian rebels will be first on the agenda when Obama and Putin meet June 18 at the G8 summit in Enniskillen, Ireland.

         Obama’s best place for U.S. national security is to maintain amicable relations with Russia and China.  Unless Barack can make a convincing case for why intervention in Syria is more important than U.S. relations with Russia and China, or, for that matter, relations on the U.N. Security Council, then he should listen carefully when he meets with Putin at the G8.  “All these maneuvers about no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors are a direct consequence of a lack of respect for international law,” said Lukashevich, referring directly to al-Assad’s right under the U.N. Charter to defend his sovereignty from all foreign and domestic threats.  If the shoe were on the other foot and the U.S. government defended itself against a foreign or domestic revolt, would Obama want Russia or China supporting the insurgency?  Whatever the bloodshed in Syria, it’s not the U.S. battle to win or lose.

         When Obama meets Putin tomorrow, he’ll get an earful about the risks of toppling al-Assad’s regime.  Russia has fought some hard-fought battles with Chechen terrorists trying to attack Moscow and destabilize Russian life.  Putin has seen firsthand what happens when you let Islamic extremists run amok in Chechnya or the former Soviet Caucasus states.  While not saying they’d send the Red Army into Syria, Russia has made it clear they plan to defend al-Assad’s sovereignty.  When Hezbollah’s chief Hassan Nasrallah promised to defend al-Assad May 1, it changed the dynamics, giving al-Assad a better chance of hanging onto power.  If the U.S. intervenes militarily in Syria, it will start a proxy war with Iran by fighting Hezbollah.  Before capitulating to GOP conservatives, Obama should consider the big picture of alienating Russia and China by arming Syrian rebels.

          Arming Syrian rebels can only backfire on the U.S. in Syria.  Apart from legimate objections voiced by Russia, the White House must understand the nature of the Saudi-financed Wahhabi war against al-Assad's Shiite minority government.  Stepping into another sectarian conflict won’t be solved by U.S. military intervention anymore than it’s been solved in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Joining the battle against al-Assad puts the U.S. on the same side as al-Qaeda currently battling to topple Syria.  Whatever weapons or combat equipment are given to Syrian rebels, it’s likely to fall into the wrong hands and come back to bite the U.S.  Joining a Saudi-funded Wahhabi war against al-Assad damages U.S. credibility and hurts bilateral relations with Russia and China.  If the U.S. wants enemies on the U.N. Security Council, joining the fight against al-Assad is the best way to guarantee it.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.