Syria: Who needs enemies?

In his latest interview with US network CBS, he did not deviate from his line.

Obama repeated what he has said at least six or seven times in the past month alone, namely, that his commitments in the Middle East are about fighting terror, and not the Assad regime. He said that the solution to the Syrian crisis could not be a military one but has to follow a political settlement.

This time, however, Obama added a remark that carried many connotations. Any settlement concerning Syria, he said, was a "long-term proposition". In other words, we cannot even expect him to push for such a settlement, and all the Syrians can do now is to be calm and patient, and put up with Assad's barrel bombs.

With such statements, Obama wants to show that he is honest with himself, and that he does not want to cheat the Syrians or give them false promises. But the fact of the matter is that the United States has not stopped reneging on its promises regarding Syria in the past three and a half years of crisis.

Broken promises

The US promised the Syrian opposition, both before and after the Geneva conference in early 2014, to alter the military balance of power on the ground and force Assad to agree to serious negotiations on the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué.

But it has offered nothing by way of delivering on these promises.

Now the US has completely abdicated all responsibility for the Syrian crisis, leaving the matter to be handled by the international envoy Staffan de Mistura, who arranges local truces. These truces complement the work of the Syrian National Defence militias in dismantling and dividing the resistance.

The US has ignored its obligations to the Syrian people, and left them prey to bombs, rockets, and heavy artillery. This contradicts international covenants signed by the US, which force the superpower to protect people at risk of massacre or genocide - which has been happening for more than three years in Syria, in plain sight of the world.

The US has ignored its obligations to the world - when it did nothing in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. With every passing day, the US betrays its international legal and political commitments - when it chooses to sit idly by while massacres occur on a daily basis. Global media cover these massacres extensively yet the US does not lift a finger.

The US has completely abdicated all responsibility for the Syrian crisis.

The US defies logic when its leaders claim there is nothing that can be done to address the heinous crimes committed by Assad and his militias.

The victims must agree to kneel before their victimisers, and sit with them at the negotiating table - not fight the murderous regime but share power with it.

Encouraging Assad

In all his statements over the past few bloody years, Obama has been keen to reassure Assad and explain to him that there would no US or international military intervention. It is as though Obama wanted to free Assad's hand and encourage him to violate all moral and political constraints, murdering his own people and destroying his own country.

Assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly, even after his chemical arsenal was supposedly dismantled, but the US administration has ignored all violations, alluding to them only on a handful of occasions.

Meanwhile, the US, on the pretext of fearing that weapons could fall into the hands of "terrorists", refused to supply arms to the pro-democracy opposition. The US therefore had the biggest role in fuelling the growth of extremism, and allowing terror groups to become a powerful force in Syria and the Levant.

The US, by insisting that only a political solution was viable to preserve the Syrian state and its institutions, unwittingly supported Assad's military campaign, prolonged the conflict, and let Assad fulfil his twisted dream of taking revenge on the country.

Instead of preserving the state and its institutions, these were undermined from within, and now Iranian-funded militias dominate them. The Syrian army itself was turned into a gaggle of rival militias that often fight among one another, looting as they please.

Obama has always assigned blame for the war equally between Assad and his opponents, and today, he may even prefer Assad to the latter.

All this complacency cannot just be the result of mistaken calculations, or legitimate concerns over being involved in foreign wars. Nor can it be down to a fear of making lofty commitments to the Syrian people.

It seems clearer by the day that it is the result of a deep commitment, not to support the Syrian people, but rather to steer clear of challenging Assad no matter what. The question here is this: Which party is this commitment supposed to serve the most, Israel, Iran, or both?

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

This article is an edited translation from our Arabic edition.

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Al Araby Al Jadeed, its editorial board or staff.