To Mideast, U.S. policy on region seems adrift
BEIRUT — President Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional approval for military strikes on Syria reinforces a growing image across much of the Middle East of a regional U.S. policy that is adrift at a time of perilous change.
The announcement Saturday, after a week of tough rhetoric on Syria, comes at the end of a hard summer for Obama on thorny issues stemming from the “Arab Spring” uprisings two years ago. In Egypt, the U.S. appears to have alienated not only the new military-led government, but Islamists, nationalists and liberals as well with its approach to the July 3 coup that ousted the country’s first democratically elected government.
On Syria, Obama has been deeply reluctant to get involved militarily. But he finds himself ensnared in his own rhetoric of a year ago establishing a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons.
Looming in the background is another issue that is a major concern, not only for Washington but for many of its allies — including Israel. That is Iran.
George W. Bush was derided in much of the region as wrongheadedly decisive, especially in ordering the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama took office promising a new beginning in relations with the Islamic world. But he has been assailed as vacillating and unable to craft a coherent strategy for multiple crises.
The new military-backed government in Egypt, a strategic ally for decades, is increasingly dismissive of U.S. interests. Money from the Persian Gulf is pouring in to replace U.S. aid and U.S. influence. And the conflict in Syria serves as the focus for deep animosities between Sunni and Shiite Muslims — which also have reemerged with force in Iraq.
The U.S. threat to launch cruise missiles against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21 could be partly aimed at reestablishing a sense of U.S. control in the region, said Moataz Salama of Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “But the situation in the region is too big for the U.S.”
In Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Sunday during a meeting with a visiting parliamentarian delegation from Iran, Syria’s close ally, that his country “is capable of facing up to any external aggression.”
Deputy Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad was quoted in official media accounts saying that Obama “was clearly hesitant, disappointed and confused” during his statement Saturday.
Key U.S. allies such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian opposition were pushing for a quick strike against Assad’s government — and already disappointed by Obama’s declaration that military action would be limited and not aimed at removing Assad from power.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had assailed the U.S. plan as a “hit-and-run” attack, and called for a sustained bombardment to push Syria’s government “to the point of collapsing.” In Cairo on Sunday, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal urged the Arab League to back a U.S. strike against Syria.
Both of their countries have supported an effort to arm the Syrian rebels. But neither Saudi Arabia nor Turkey, which has a large, modern military and a 500-mile border with Syria, has indicated a willingness to join a U.S. attack.
Egypt, meanwhile, was among several nations at the Arab League meeting opposed to foreign intervention in Syria’s civil war.
Analysts say that although not all the region’s problems are Washington’s fault, the U.S. tends to get the blame — and its inability to establish some coherence in the region makes matters worse.
“Everyone is accusing them of things that may not necessarily be real, but in any case there are negative feelings toward American policy in the region,” said Gamal Soltan, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo. “There are many examples of how their policy here is confused.”
In one much-cited instance, the Obama administration seemed to agonize about whether to label as a coup the military takeover that ousted Egypt’s Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, and ultimately declined to do so.
Now, in a sign of growing disdain for Obama, placards waved by pro-military demonstrators in Cairo depict Obama as wearing a beard like Osama bin Laden’s. They accuse Obama of siding with Morsi in a struggle between Islamists and secularists over Egypt’s future.
The outgoing U.S. ambassador, Anne Patterson, had to defend herself against accusations by a prominent newspaper editor that she was complicit in a plot that would have seen Egypt’s south secede.
Islamists are no happier, citing Washington’s decision not to cut $1.3 billion in annual military aid to protest the coup.
The way forward in Syria is no clearer. Washington says it seeks to deter Damascus’ alleged use of chemical weapons and degrade its military capacity, while backing Assad’s ouster. But U.S. policymakers are also keen to avoid the sudden collapse of the Syrian state and a takeover by radical Islamist groups that increasingly dominate the fragmented rebel forces.
Some of Washington’s allies, notably Saudi Arabia, appear less concerned with post-Assad chaos and more focused on overthrowing his government as soon as possible.
“Any opposition to any international action [against Assad] would only encourage Damascus to move forward with committing its crimes and using all weapons of mass destruction,” Prince Saud said during the Arab League meeting.
Beyond Saudi Arabia’s pleas about the fate of the Syrian masses is a strategic goal: weakening the regional influence of Shiite-dominated Iran. The question of Iran, a nation viewed as an existential threat by the conservative Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia and by Israel, casts a shadow over the Syria debate.
Proponents of Western intervention in Syria have argued that a U.S. strike could act as a deterrent to Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. But others say that attacking Syria will only embolden hard-liners in Iran who are opposed to any negotiation with the West about the nuclear issue.
In Israel, many view Obama’s decision as evidence of a growing reluctance to engage decisively in the Middle East, which may provide a boost to those who are pressing for a unilateral strike against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Obama is “becoming a laughingstock in the eyes of friends and foes alike,” said Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. “What are the Saudis supposed to make of the U.S. conduct? Or the Egyptians?”
In Iran, officials generally viewed Obama’s decision to hold off on attacking Syria as a temporary victory.
“This indicates that the warmonger faction in the U.S.A. is isolated,” said Jalal Barzegar, an analyst close to Iran’s reformist camp. “The world has lost patience for more wars in the Middle East.”
McDonnell reported from Beirut, Fleishman from Cairo and Richter from Washington. Times staff writer Edmund Sanders in Jerusalem and special correspondents Ingy Hassieb in Cairo, Nabih Bulos in Amman, Jordan, and Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
