Obama's Syrian Policy Options

Obama has three options in Syria. 1) Support Assad. 2) Overthrow Assad. 3) Lean one way then the other and keep the war going as long as possible. Obama cannot adopt (1) given his statements about Assad having to go. Even if he wanted to, it would be foolish to help Hezbollah and the Iranians win. Obama could adopt (2), but that would require more than just weapons; at least an air campaign. Moreover, (2) might well give power in Damascus to Jihadists. Obama’s strategy thus far fits (3), which could be described as the best strategy to serve purely American interests.  As long as the fighting continues, the Sunni jihadists will head to Syria, where many will be “martyred.” And while that is happening, which is a good thing for the US, financially strapped Iran will be bankrolling Syria, which is also good for the US. But there are several downsides to (3). If that is, or becomes, our policy, someone will eventually leak the memo and the Obama administration will look exceedingly heartless, since (3) means the death of another 100,000 Syrians. Moreover, if the sectarian nature of the war keeps escalating, the entire region could collapse into a spasm of violence from Lebanon to Iran.

In short, Obama has NO—ZERO—wise options in Syria. Right now he is straddling the line between (2) and (3), but neither are winners. If he ends up leaning toward (2), he better discuss that with the American people, have a debate, and involve Congress. If he goes with (3), he cannot discuss that publicly. There is no way we can have a public debate about a policy consciously adopted that essentially condemns hundreds of thousands of Arabs to death to serve American interests.