+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The American strategic mistake in Syria no one's talking about

For all the talk of intervention or lack of intervention, there’s one strategic error the U.S. made in Syria that nobody’s discussing — President Bill Clinton’s failure to give full American backing to an Israel-Syria peace deal when it was still possible.

By Gilad Halpern

Bombed out buildings in Aleppo, Syria. December 26, 2012 (Freedom House/CC)

Bombed out buildings in Aleppo, Syria. December 26, 2012 (Freedom House/CC)

The headline “A president is born” is probably being written at this very moment, if it hasn’t been yet. Donald Trump’s order to strike Syria’s al-Shayrat airbase in response to Damascus’ use of chemical weapons against civilians received bipartisan praise, even among his most devout detractors on both sides of the aisle. For the first time in Trump’s political career, he is not at odds with the consensus.

Thursday’s attack was lauded as a correction of America’s failed strategy in Syria under Barack Obama. Finally, observers say, America put its foot down, showed Russian President Vladimir Putin who’s boss, and made clear that it has red lines — unlike Obama in 2013, in the wake of the previous chemical attack widely blamed on the Syrian government. The days of leading from behind are over.

Whether you’re a fan of the former president or not, you should be ready to concede that his hands-off approach, hoping that the Syrian conflict would somehow dissipate or resolve itself, has failed. In light of this, greater American involvement may seem like the right answer, but it fails to account for the fact that American interventionism is one of the major causes of the current mess that the Middle East is in.

In reality the endless debate on who’s to blame for the protracted conflict in Syria — Obama’s overcautious realism or Bush’s gung-ho neo-conservatism — misses the point. The gravest strategic mistake on Syria was made by Bill Clinton. Why Clinton? Because he didn’t push hard enough for an Israeli-Syrian peace deal when it was still possible.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the signing of the Oslo Accord (photo: Vince Musi / The White House)

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the signing of the Oslo Accord (photo: Vince Musi / The White House)

The reactions to this statement, in Israel at least, range from a raised eyebrow to seething outrage, depending on how far to the right the person is. In fact, since the start of the Syrian civil war, Israelis have emitted a collective sigh of relief that all efforts to reach an accord with Syria, based on the principle of land for peace, ultimately failed. Israelis praise the heavens that they didn’t give back the Golan Heights, because then ISIS would be sitting on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, minutes away from Israeli towns.

But this is a short-sighted perspective that accepts the current situation of endless bloodshed as inevitable. Syria is the train wreck that it’s become because it was made into a regional chessboard, where different powers push and pull their levers in a more or less equal measure, preventing the balance from being tipped. Precisely because of this political limbo, we are unable to envisage an endgame for Syria. What would be a better outcome — Bashar al-Assad surviving or being toppled? As they say in Yiddish, it’s like choosing between the plague and cholera.

An Israeli-Syrian peace deal might have pre-empted that. That’s why it was, at least on paper, a prime strategic goal for America — not because it would have brought quiet to Israel’s northern border, not because Damascus would have welcomed Israeli tourists, and not because it would have provided the U.S. with another client state in the region (Egypt and Saudi Arabia are enough trouble as it is). Its strategic importance would have been in placing Syria resolutely within the American orbit.

America’s patronage would have filled the power vacuum, whose harrowing results we’re witnessing these days. In a pro-American Syria, Washington would have called the shots, instead of Moscow, Tehran, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha each having a go — and a stake. If Russia and Iran had lost Assad (the elder and later the son) as a strategic partner as early as in the 1990s, they wouldn’t have invested so much military, political and diplomatic capital in saving him. They wouldn’t be fighting to the death – of many innocent civilians – to save his skin.

This is one reason why similar upheaval in Egypt never descended into the paralyzing chaos that we’re seeing in Syria. The situation in Egypt is far from ideal either, but I’d take the authoritarian Abdel Fatah al-Sisi over the murderous Assad without giving it a second thought.

Gilad Halpern is a journalist and broadcaster, host of “The Tel Aviv Review – Ideas from Israel” podcast on TLV1 Radio.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. JeffB

      A few comments:

      Precisely because of this political limbo, we are unable to envisage an endgame for Syria. What would be a better outcome — Bashar al-Assad surviving or being toppled?

      Syria breaking into several governable states. Alawites and some allied Sunni clearly support Assad and he is able to govern them without the use of internal terror. That’s 1/7th of the population. Kurds clearly deserve their own state. That leaves a large contingent of Sunnis which share common interests with the Sunni areas in Iraq. Have nation states where the people living in them share enough common culture to agree on the nature of the good. That also makes liberal democracy possible.

      America’s patronage would have filled the power vacuum, whose harrowing results we’re witnessing these days.

      America doesn’t have the power to stop civil wars always in client states even when it tries. Ask the Koreans, Yemeni or Lebanese about that. Being an American client doesn’t stop the underlying hostility ask the Irish. The problem in Syria is the various ethnic groups don’t have a common interest, what is the USA going to do about that?

      but I’d take the authoritarian Abdel Fatah al-Sisi over the murderous Assad without giving it a second thought.

      If Assad had 48% and not 13% he’d be a lot less murderous. It is because Assad is weaker than Sisi he needs to use much more force when confronted with a full on rebellion.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Firentis

      What a bunch of hypothetical garbage.

      My favorite line is: “America’s patronage would have filled the power vacuum”. Because that is what the Obama administration was known for – filling in power vacuums in the Middle East.

      Egypt had a revolution, a fundamentalist Islamist group coming to power, and then a coup consisting of massacres and mass arrests. And the Americans had minimal influence over any of it. The idea that the Americans would have much influence over events in Syria is based on a world where the White House was not under the control of an administration that was busy trying to abandon the Middle East. In fact, the most likely scenario of the past 8 years even had a peace deal been signed is that as a result of the Iranian nuclear deal the Americans would have ceded patronage of Syria to Iran and Russia. And Syria would have collapsed anyway into numerous sectarian faction each one fighting for survival.

      The difference between Egypt and Syria is not that one was an American client and the other wasn’t. The difference is that Egypt is 90%+ Arab Sunni Muslim with a weak and politically ineffective Christian minority, while Syria has been ruled for 50 years by an Alawite minority in spite of the opposition of the majority Arab Sunni Muslim population. The Egyptian situation leads to fighting over who is the legitimate leader of an Arab Sunni Muslim country – hence revolutions, coups and countercoups. The Syrian situation leads to fighting over about whether the Arab Sunnis or the Alawites should run the country – hence sectarian bloodshed.

      The biggest mistakes in the region were: (1) messing up the invasion of Iraq, primarily by disbanding the Iraqi army (2) leaving Iraq too early thus destroying its chances at political stability and handing much of the country over to Iran (3) allowing Mubarak to fall due to fantastic and delusional views of the “Arab Spring” (4) allowing Iran and Russia to determine the course of the Syria war. The first was Bush. The rest were Obama.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Above all, this is George W. Bush’s idiotic mistake. And of his idiotic henchman Cheney and Rumsfeld who didn’t babysit the boy properly. The invasion of Iraq itself and the disbanding of the Iraqi army once he invaded because (I paraphrase) “I just know them Eye-raqi people are like all men and, just like me, all men pine for FREEDOM! Above all! And democracy is not a complex political and cultural achievement, a pinnacle of political development, always precarious, it is the natural state of human kind if you just let them loose! Hobbes? Locke? Burke? Montesquieu? De Tocqueville? Jefferson? Adams? Madison? Never read ’em! Haven’t even heard of half of them! Middle Eastern history? I was too busy drinking at Yale! Just set up polling booths and everybody will behave like they do in Des Moines, Iowa on the Fourth of July!” Jackass.

      Reply to Comment