US President Barack Obama is in a quandary. When he came to power, five years ago, he made it clear that he was elected to end America's wars, not to start new ones. In fact, it was Obama's opposition of the US war in Iraq (March 2003) that boosted his chances in the 2008 presidential race, and ultimately landed him in office. But one year into his second term, Obama is asking the American people to wage another war in the Middle East. The villain of choice this time is President Bashar Al-Assad, whose regime reportedly used chemical weapons on 21 August in an attack on a Damascus suburb. Obama waited until Congress ended its summer recess to demand a mandate for a strike on Syria. If such a mandate is given, the US is likely to lead an international force in an attempt to erode Al-Assad's military capabilities. But there is no guarantee that Congress will agree. And if it rejects the idea, Obama will be faced with unpleasant choices. Interestingly, Obama didn't have to ask for congressional consent. The US president didn't ask for such permission when he intervened in Libya, nor when he used drones to drop bombs in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But with the US public divided over what seems like a risky overseas adventure, Obama is not about to push his luck. So what will Congress say? One possibility is that Congress would vote in favour of the attack, although a recent Gallup poll shows that 51 per cent of Americans are opposed to intervention in Syria, while 36 per cent are in favour. The cost of the war is hard for congressmen to justify at a time when they are at each other's throats in the ongoing battle to balance the budget. Of course, Congress may oppose the strike, leaving Obama with the option of ordering the strike without congressional backing, which is within his right under the War Powers Act — a 1973 piece of legislation that entitles the president to order military operations without congressional approval in situations threatening national security and vital national interests. If Obama goes to war without congressional approval, he will be required by law to notify Congress within 48 hours of the start of operations, and to brief it every month until the end of operations. And if Congress denies the Pentagon additional funding for the war effort, the president would be required to end all military involvement within 90 days. Then again, it is possible that Congress would oppose the strike and that Obama would refrain from ordering it. In which case, the American president would wreck his credibility as a world leader, since he has already called Syria's use of chemical weapons a “red line”. America's failure to act in Syria is likely to embolden local armed groups, such as Hizbullah. It may also send a message to US allies in the region that they can no longer rely on US protection in times of crisis. Russia's initiative on the removal of chemical weapons from Syria was perhaps the lifeline that Obama has been praying for since the crisis began. Congress, recognising that Damascus “welcomed” the initiative, asked Obama to postpone the vote on Syria to give diplomacy a chance. There is another way out for Obama: if the UN finds the Syrian government guilty of the attack, the UN Security Council may sanction international intervention in Syria, citing the need to stop further atrocities. In which case, Obama would have less explaining to do. If the UN decides in favour of intervention, a US-led coalition is almost certain to conduct selective strikes in Syria. Israel, too, may get involved. A flurry of intelligence gathering and coordination is perhaps underway already. And if these culminate in credible action, Al-Assad may have no other choice but to seek a negotiated settlement.
The writer is an expert in US affairs and associate editor of Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya.
