The bad, the worse, and the ugly

The West has concluded hat Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against civilians last Wednesday. The horrific incident, in which many women and children were killed, meets the definition of a crime against humanity. The world has the capability to respond and Israel has recently proved, according to foreign sources, that Syrian military targets can be attacked without risk. There is also clear political and moral justification for striking the Assad regime. So what is the world waiting for-

First of all, the U.N. Security Council would never approve such action. Russia will continue to support the Assad regime, which is Moscow's last ally in the Middle East. But there is also another reason for the world's lack of response: U.S. President Barack Obama pledged to himself -- and to us -- that he would go down in history as a president who ended wars, not one who started new ones.

In August 2012, Obama said that use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be, in his eyes, "crossing a red line." Since then, Assad has used chemical weapons 13 times, according to the respected Le Figaro newspaper. But Obama chose to bury his head, and U.S. deterrence, in the sand, troubling America's allies. This is not the America they know.

Obama has good cause for hesitation. The Syrian opposition contains jihadist elements, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner hopes that things in Syria, as well as Egypt, will somehow work themselves out. In Egypt, Obama first bet on the Egyptian people, then the Muslim Brotherhood, and finally the military, which won't quickly forgive him for the impressive zigzag. Obama acts largely through speeches, as well as drone strikes in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. The rest is just words, words and more words.

Washington might also remain out of the game this time, even though there are options to bypass the U.N., such as a solution via the Arab League or using the precedent set in 1999 in Kosovo, where Russia also opposed Western military action.

We are currently at an impasse in Syria, despite the world's awareness of the horrors taking place there. One must admit that Obama is in a bind after his red line was turned into a global farce. The U.N. is also incapable of taking a tough stand against a leader who is slaughtering his own people with chemical weapons. It is ironic that even Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, a top ally of the Syrian regime, recognized that chemical weapons were used in Syria, without specifying who used them (although he hinted that it was the Syrian opposition who used them). The Iranians would likely sit by quietly during military action against the Assad regime. The Iranians prefer that the world's spotlight be on Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and the Maghreb, as long as they can continue their important projects (their nuclear program) unimpeded.

Right now, Obama is gambling on finding a diplomatic solution at the second Geneva conference, where the Syria issue will be discussed. An American-Russian meeting is set to take place in October in The Hague, where, in a normal world, Assad would be put on trial at the International Court of Justice.

The Middle East continues to become more and more complicated. Qatar and Saudi Arabia both support the rebels in Syria, but are battling with each other over what the nature of the next regime in Damascus will be. Turkey is very fearful that weapons could reach the Kurds who aspire for independence. In Egypt, the situation is not yet stable, and in Lebanon, as usual, there is a free-for-all. It is good there are peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to serve as a fig leaf for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

From the start, we knew the choice in Syria was between bad guys and other bad guys. Obama must now choose to back -- with actions, not just words -- the weak side, meaning Syrian civilians. He will definitely have time for speeches later.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו