My new column for The Week reviews why Obama is unlikely to support direct intervention in Syria in his second term.
Intervention in Syria and Obama’s Second Term
12 Responses to Intervention in Syria and Obama’s Second Term
-
Dream on. He is as interventionist as Bush was. Obamcons are just blind to it.
-
I hope you are right Daniel but I think you probably are.
-
While there is a difference between a pacifist and an interventionalist, there is a difference between a pragmatic interventionalist and a happy warrior. Obama is no pacifist, but he’s no happy warrior, either.
-
The New York Times has this week started detailing the Syrian rebels’ “missteps,” which include torture and summary execution; these missteps are apparently “eroding” support for the rebels among former supporters.
That the NYT is reporting on these atrocities in detail now, where before the NYT was more focused on the Syrian government’s atrocities, may be a signal of some kind . . .
-
As my 92 year old father, and World War II veteran, and history scholar (deemed so by New York University, is that acceptable?) with 92 years of experience, pointed out to me when I explained to him that TAC thought the best choice was Obama because he would not get us into any wars was that historically, and except for Iraq, most large wars we’ve gotten ourselves into have been at the hands of the Democratic party – and so are often gleefully justified by historians. But he’s just an old man. What does he know?
-
I agree that Obama is reluctant to intervene directly in the Syria civil war.
Obama was reluctant to intervene in the Libyan civil war/revolt.
-
Grumpy – - The biggest risk, in my view (regarding potential war with Iran) is that Iran will continue stockpiling 20 percent enriched uranium, triggering more sanctions.
The US and UK would likely seek to block Iranian oil exports, prior to any attack (which would be a response to an Iranian military response to the blockade).
-
I also agree with Daniel that Obama wants to enable success in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. Next round is mid-December.
Success likely would mean accepting Iranian enrichment to 5% or lower.
Obama is very reluctant to pay the political cost for accepting Iranian enrichment of uranium.
-
James, I have a sense that the coming negotiations with Iran will have a greater chance of success now that they won’t have to be the subject of campaign politicization. That, and that Obama will never again have to go before voters could give him some more free room for deal making.
Let’s just hope the fiscal issues are resolved by then, so that the two issues do not end up being conflated.
Then again, as may other have pointed out here, the GOP is rapidly losing its mind, so there is no telling what level of crazy we might see from the right, should the p5+1 start getting close to some sort of deal.
-
Bob – - Iran recognised no deal with the US could be attemtped until after the elections.
Israel lobby, both on the right and on the left, will try to block any P5+1 deal with Iran. Regrettably. The left in Israel favors a deal, apparently.



My friend, I hope your are right.
The bigger concern, of course, is Iran. It’s not to be excluded that Israel will act without even our tacit consent, but I doubt Obama will launch a war unless the Iranians are very stupid or the Israelis manage a really clever false flag operation.
A sordid bunch in power for the next four years we may have, but at least we’re spared John Bolton and Dan Senor. Something to remember come Thanksgiving.