Regarding the recent fruits of negotiations in Geneva over Iran's bid to develop the atomic bomb, the Iranians came away from the table insisting that the agreement guarantees their right to enrich uranium, the Russians came away from the table insisting that the agreement guarantees Iran's right to enrich uranium, & yet Secretary of State Kerry came away from the table insisting that the agreement does not guarantee Iran's right to enrich uranium. Iran & Russia share one interpretation of an international accord while the United States holds a dissenting view. That sounds oddly familiar. Hmmm, where else could we have seen that recently? Ah, yes, Syria. For over two years the White House & Foggy Bottom huffed & puffed & threatened to blow "President" Assad's house down; "Assad must go" was the refrain, the rebel Syrian National Coalition was recognized as the country's legitimate government. Yet, push come to shove over Syria's atrocious use of chemical weapons, Iran & Russia both insisted that Assad must stay, must retain his grip over Syria---& the U.S. agreed, relegitmizing the Assad regime in the agreement to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure & destroy the country's chemical weapons stockpiles. The Americans said one thing, the Iranians & the Russians said something else, & in the end the Iranian & Russian position prevailed. So, in the case of Geneva, the easing of sanctions, & the "freeze" of Iran's nuclear weapons initiative, the Americans say one thin, the Iranians & Russians say something else. Whose position do we really expect to prevail?
Oh, yes, & while all this goes on, the slaughter in Syria continues unabated. Assad remains in power, at least as much as he has since the uprising became two & a half years hence. His forces continue to be bolstered by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps & Lebanon's Hezbollah militia. The "Geneva II" peace talks are scheduled to begin in late January, still two months away, but to what purpose? The Supreme Military Council (S.M.C.) of the Free Syrian Army, the acceptable "pro-Western" rebels, have announced that they will not take part & that they will not stop fighting during negotiations. So, even if an accord is reached betwixt the Syrian Arab Republic (Assad) & the Syrian National Coalition (exiles, defectors, & diplomats with no constituency in Syria & no power on the ground), what will that matter? The National Coalition exercises no power over the S.M.C. & the S.M.C. is itself being marginalized by a new umbrella group called the Islamic Front. The Islamic Front aren't implacable foes of civilization like the al-Nusra Front & the Islamic State of Iraq & al-Sham (the local al-Qaeda affiliate), but neither are they eager to ally with the Western powers like the S.M.C. Assad remains in power & that looks increasingly like not the worst possible outcome of the Syrian civil war. The window for fostering a pro-Western rebellion has closed as a direct consequence of our hesitation & indecision.
I've been prophesying a "parade of horrors" ever since then-Senator Obama's election in November of '08. Never did I imagine the parade would be quite so horrible.
Liberty & Union: Obamboozled
President Obama's foreign policy seems to be predicated on the belief that American power is always a malign influence, & that if only America retreats from the world that goodness & light will reign in our absence. The reality is altogether different, & as America under Mr. Obama actively projects weakness & promotes disengagement, truly scary actors arise to fill the power vacuum we leave behind.
I am undecided as to the best imagery for the president. Is he the Pharaoh Akhenaten, given over to vainglory as he attempts to tear down the polytheistic Egyptian religion & construct a new monotheistic faith with himself as the one god's only representative on Earth? Or is he the Emperor Nero, given over to madness & playing his fiddle as Rome burns all around? Both are satisfying, but which is most apropos? Decisions, decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment