While Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum toil in the side arena of election politics, President Barak Obama must focus much of his attention on the rest of the world.
Sunday, in Sofia, capital of Bulgaria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sharply criticized Russia and China for voting against a Security Council resolution racheting up sanctions against Syria for its continued slaughter of its own people for protesting the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Their vetoes killed the action, which was the initiative of the Arab League.
The veto was, Mrs. Clinton declared, a travesty.
Because the Security Council cannot act, the United States and others in the region — including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey — may feed arms to the rebels in Syria to allow them to resist Assad’s troops.
President Obama must weigh the risks and decide what U.S. interests are involved and what degree of involvement should be taken.
What are the U.S. interests? The U.S. went to war against Iraq with a grand design in mind: To overthrow Saddam Hussein and create a democracy in place of his dictatorship. Because freedom and self-government are infectious, supporters of the invasion argued, the example set would be copied by Iraq’s neighbors — maybe even Iran — and the Middle East would be changed forever. That was the world-changing vision that filled the vacuum when the weapons of mass destruction vanished.
It didn’t work out quite that way. But the geopolitical interests of the United States remain the same. A stable Middle East at peace with its neighbors and with those who depend upon its oil will remain at the top of U.S. priorities in international relations for the foreseeable future. President Obama must, therefore, do what the United States can do in cooperation with its allies in the region to push Assad out of power and, while he is at it, make certain Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.
Both of these goals must be reached, if it is at all possible, through diplomatic means and the use of economic sanctions. The last thing the U.S. needs now is another Iraq, or, for that matter, another Libya.
WALKING THIS tight-rope, if the mixed metaphor will be allowed, while running for re-election on the other leg is a daunting challenge. It goes with the territory, of course: Mr. Obama can’t say to the world, excuse me, but I can’t deal with foreign policy for the next nine months, I must devote myself to politics, instead.
Nor can he delegate. He can’t — and goodness knows he shouldn’t — let Israel dictate U.S. policy toward Iran. He is making it clear he opposes a preemptive strike against Iran by Israel because he knows that a wider war would be the result and the U.S. would be sucked into it with what could be catastrophic consequences.
Likewise, he must stay firm on Syria — firmly against Assad; firmly against U.S. military involvement there; firmly behind the Arab League and, most of all, firmly supportive of Turkey’s commitment to a Syrian solution that respects the people of Syria.
What will the effect of Obama’s concentration on these world commitments be on his political fortunes? That can’t enter into his calculations. He is the sitting president; the commander in chief; the leader, still, of the Free World. Those responsibilities come first. He must tell himself that if he does his whole job well, politics will take care of themselves.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
