It is now common knowledge that Russian President Vladimir Putin, of all people, gave US President Barack Obama the chance to save his face, and, if not to avoid impeachment by the US senate, at least the chance to vindicate his award of the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama had been threatening to use force against Syria if it crossed the red line of using chemical weapons against the rebels fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. He had also been planning a pre-emptive bombardment of Syrian territory from the sea by US navy tomahawk missiles that could have killed many civilians in the process, as has happened repeatedly with his use of the US drones that have breached the sovereignty of Pakistan and Yemen. Obama had put himself in a very difficult situation when he decided that Syria had crossed his so-called red line, notably because he had had no authentic proof that it had been the Al-Assad regime that had used the chemical weapons. The Syrian regime had argued that it had been the Islamist rebels in the country, including some Al-Qaeda operatives, that had used the weapons in order to put Obama in a corner and force the Western world to attack Syria. It was in this situation that Putin offered to support a United Nations Security Council resolution to force Syria to deliver its chemical weapons to UN inspectors if Obama changed his mind on the bombing of Syria. Some of Obama's advisers had warned him not to repeat former president George W Bush's mistakes when the latter increased the US budget deficit by spending trillions of dollars, despite the $400 billion surplus he had inherited from his predecessor Bill Clinton, on a long and bloody war against the Taliban in Afghanistan that is still unresolved a decade later. Bush had also carried out a pre-emptive attack on Iraq without the authorisation of the UN Security Council and in the absence of an international coalition. He had planned the attack, as was reported at the time, at the first meeting of his cabinet in 2000, a year before the 11 September attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, using the pretence that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had created an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, something which was never proven by United Nations inspectors. The real reason, as many writers said at the time, myself included both in Al-Ahram Weekly and in the daily Al-Ahram, was to secure the oil resources in Iraq and to get US companies contracts to do business there. Yet, despite this history, many of those around Obama advised him that if he did not stand firm on his threat against Syria he would look weak and America would lose face. In order to get congressional approval for US military action against Syria, Obama, along with John Kerry, his secretary of state, tried to assure congress that any military action the US might take against Syria would be limited to air bombardments in order to deter any further use of chemical weapons. An “unbelievably small” force, in the words of John Kerry, would be used, with “no boots on the ground”. Obama had, however, realised that any Security Council resolution authorising him to carry out a strike on Syria would be vetoed by the Russians, who have been Al-Assad's main arms supplier. He would also have been concerned by the decision of the British parliament not to support action against Syria and by the refusal of Germany to be involved. Opponents of the invasion had also warned that missile strikes against Syria were unlikely to be enough to cause lasting damage and that the US could be forced to employ ground troops. Only ground troops can act effectively against major targets, and once these are engaged there will inevitably be casualties. David Finkel, a writer for the Washington Post and a Pulitzer Prize winner who has reported from war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, has provided some astonishing figures in his new book Thank You for Your Service. In this book, Finkel says that the US sent more than two million men and women to Afghanistan and Iraq, of whom more than 6,500 were killed and tens of thousands were injured. The latter figure includes some 1,500 amputees, injured not only from the shooting but also from walking through the minefields that became the tools of resistance used by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the warring factions in Iraq. In addition to the post-traumatic stress syndrome that has made some US soldiers take their own lives or has been responsible for the breakdown of families, it is painful to imagine the heartbreak felt by the soldiers and their families when they meet their loved ones returning back from the war walking on steel or wooden legs. The Republicans in the US were squeamish about the proposed attack on Syria, with the exception of senator John McCain and some others. Besides the risk that any such attack could kill Syrian civilians, both adults and children, there was no guarantee that Obama would be able to fulfil his promise of “no boots on the ground”. Obama and his supporters should have realised that he was standing on sand and that if he went ahead in his attack on Syria without congressional and/or United Nations Security Council authorisation, or if the attack failed, he could very well face impeachment. Two of Obama's former secretaries of defence, Robert Gates and his successor Leon Panetta, spelled out their opinions on Obama's plan to invade Syria while participating in a forum on 17 September at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, and reported on by the American media. Both men criticised Obama for asking congress to authorise the use of force against Syria and both were sceptical about the ability of Russia to broker a deal to remove Syrian chemical weapons. They also disagreed as to whether military action would be effective. Gates considered a military attack to be a mistake. “If we launch a military attack, in the eyes of a lot of people we become the villain instead of Al-Assad,” Gates said. “We would be throwing gasoline on a very complex fire in the Middle East.” Gates blamed the Obama administration for forgetting the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya regarding “the unintended consequences of military action once it is launched” — a stark reminder from the man who had himself supervised the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For his part, Panetta, who had been the head of the CIA and had succeeded Gates after the latter's resignation, blamed Obama for not carrying out limited action against Syria. “When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on his words,” Panetta said. Asked about his comments at a news conference on 18 September, the current secretary of defence, Chuck Hagel, said that he had “the greatest respect” for his two predecessors, but that he disagreed with them, presumably meaning that he supported the plans to attack Syria. It was at this point that Putin lent Obama a helping hand. During the recent Group of 20 meeting in Moscow, Putin pleaded with Obama to be cautious in his Middle East policy as any strike against Syria could extend the conflict in the country beyond Syria's borders and increase violence across the region and further destabilise the Middle East. Putin offered to support a United Nations resolution that would demand that Syria dismantle its arsenal of chemical weapons. Syria would be required to provide a “comprehensive listing” of its chemical weapons and their sites within a week from the day the resolution was passed and “immediate and unfettered” access to those sites by international inspectors, with the inspection to be completed by November 2013, along with the destruction of all the weapons. The latter process would be carried out by the middle of 2014. In return for such a resolution, the two presidents agreed that Obama could avoid imminent military action against Syria. At the time, it seemed that the deal negotiated between John Kerry, the US secretary of state, and Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, would be able to get off the ground. Obama grabbed this opportunity that would help him save face and would improve US relations with Russia. He announced the plan in a speech to the nation, but he also tried to show that the United States' prestige as a major power had been maintained, assuring his fellow Americans that the US was an “exceptional” nation. Putin followed this up by publishing an article in The New York Times on 12 September, in which he said that “no one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe that it was used not by the Syrian army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack, this time against Israel, also cannot be ignored.” In the article, Putin stated his disapproval of the use of military intervention to solve disputes among foreign countries. “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it,” he said. Putin did not fail to criticise former president George W Bush for his military adventures either. “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy, but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan of ‘you're either with us or against us',” Putin said, referring to Bush's famous threat to countries that refused to send troops to help in the invasion of Iraq and, of course, to share the cost of it. Putin also referred to countries acquiring weapons of mass destruction. “The world reacts by asking: if you can count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus, a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen non-proliferation, when in reality this is eroded,” he wrote. But Putin did not agree with what Obama had said in his speech to the American nation about the deal with Russia — that US foreign policy was what made America different and that “it was what makes us exceptional”. Unexpectedly, Putin sounded almost like a philosopher or religious believer when he said that “there are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policy differs too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” Is Putin planning to be a priest after he retires from the Russian presidency, if he ever does retire? Putin's article brought sharp criticism from McCain, who was against Putin's deal with Obama. In an article published on 18 September in the online newspaper Pravda.ru, excerpts of which appeared in the American media, McCain declared himself to be “pro-Russian” but said that he was a sharp critic of the Kremlin. He also focussed on Putin himself when he addressed the Russian people, claiming that they were suffering under Putin's autocratic rule. “I make the claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination,” he said. “You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced, and just.” McCain also attacked Putin for allying himself with some of the world's “most offensive and threatening tyrannies”. Putin was quick to respond to the criticisms of his rule when he spoke to an annual conference of Western academics and analysts. He tried to show how the US and NATO had been readying themselves to act against Russia and its allies, as had been the case during the Cold War. The question may be asked why the United States was so ready to resort to war in the Syrian crisis, when it could have continued to use other measures like boycotting and/or freezing government and individual assets in American banks and calling on other countries to do the same. This it did in the case of Iran, and we have seen how the latter country has suffered as a result. It is one of the reasons why we are now witnessing new developments in relations between the US and Iran. The answer is that Obama had painted himself into a corner when he pronounced that Syria had crossed a red line after the use of chemical weapons. After the United Nations experts implied in their report that it was Al-Assad who had used chemical weapons against his own people, the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, stated in a news conference on 16 September that “the findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale. This is a war crime.” Although he declined to blame Al-Assad for the crime, leaving the Security Council to decide the issue, he expressed the hope that there would be new diplomatic efforts to resolve the Syrian conflict. It was not clear whether he was referring to the possibility that the Security Council would decide to take military action against Syria and to put Al-Assad on trial before the International Criminal Court for committing war crimes, however. The United States feels that it is the policeman of the world and that it has a moral duty to strike Syria for killing its own people by using chemical weapons, according to Obama, who has described his fellow Americans as being “exceptional” people. However, the United Nations Charter is clear in prohibiting Obama from striking Syria except in self-defence, or if the Security Council authorises measures against Syria as a result of the use of chemical weapons. The council could also refer Al-Assad for trial on charges of crimes against humanity or war crimes. There was a fear that Russia would use its veto power to block the Security Council resolution that was eventually passed, if the council left open the option of using force against Syria if it did not comply in dismantling its chemical weapons. That fear increased when Putin sharply criticised the findings of the United Nations experts implicating Al-Assad in using chemical weapons against his own people, saying that these were biased and incomplete. But Putin is also facing a difficult situation at a time when he is trying to restore his country as a world power, as it was before the dismantling of the former Soviet Union. He has resisted the inclusion of any coercive language in the resolution drafted by the five permanent members of the Security Council that could end in a military intervention against Syria. In the end, the other permanent members, China, France, the UK and the United States, approved the language of the draft resolution as Putin had desired. The resolution was then presented to the 15 members of the council and unanimously approved on 27 September. It warned Syria that it would face “consequences” if it did not comply with the resolution's provisions, without specifying what kind of consequences these might be. After Al-Assad complies with the Security Council resolution, and he has already delivered up part of his chemical weapons arsenal to the UN inspectors, it remains to be seen what Obama's next steps will be regarding Al-Assad's fate and whether Syria will be divided into two or more regions. This can only be settled in a new round of negotiations between Obama and Putin. But whether this will be accepted by Al-Assad and his opponents is another story.
