Closing the book on Syria

It all started with Obama’s famous ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons which led to the Kerry-Lavrov agreement that was going to put an end to them.

Russia and the US agree on how to destroy Syria’s chemical arms, President Vladimir Putin said after meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Bali. He also said peace talks on Syria should include major players from the Muslim world.

Where do we stand with that agreement today? NYT fills in the details.

France’s foreign minister said Tuesday there were strong indications that the Syrian government had carried out attacks using chemical agents, especially chlorine, as many as 14 times in recent months, despite its promise to renounce such weapons in joining the global treaty banning them last year.

The minister, Laurent Fabius, who met here Tuesday morning with Secretary of State John Kerry, also said that he regretted that the Obama administration had decided against using force to enforce its “red line” after a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last Aug. 21 that Western nations, led by the United States, blamed on forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

Guardian provides more background to this.

Iran and its close ally President Bashar al-Assad have won the war in Syria, and the US-orchestrated campaign in support of the opposition’s attempt to topple the Syrian regime has failed, senior Iranian officials have told the Guardian.

In a series of interviews in Tehran, top figures who shape Iranian foreign policy said the west’s strategy in Syria had merely encouraged radicals, caused chaos and ultimately backfired, with government forces now on the front foot.

Now let us turn the clock back to Sept 12, 2013 where Obama fanboi Andrew Sullivan shared this with us.

President Putin’s op-ed in the NYT today is fantastic. It’s a virtual end-zone twerk, as this botoxed former KGB hack brags about restoring a more peaceful world order, basks in the relatively new concept of Russia’s global stature, asserts obvious untruths – such as the idea that the rebels were behind the chemical attack of August 21 or that they are now targeting Israel – and generally preens.

Good. And whatever the American president can do to keep Putin in this triumphant mood the better. Roger Ailes was right. If the end-result is that Putin effectively gains responsibility and control over the civil war in Syria, then we should be willing to praise him to the skies. Praise him, just as the far right praises him, for his mastery of power politics – compared with that ninny weakling Obama. Encourage him to think this is a personal and national triumph even more than he does today. Don’t just allow him to seize the limelight – keep that light focused directly on him. If that also requires dumping all over the American president, calling him weak and useless and incapable of matching the chess master from Russia, so be it. Obama can take it. He’s gotten used to being a pinata.

All this apparent national humiliation is worth it. The price Russia will pay for this triumph is ownership of the problem. At some point, it may dawn on him that he hasn’t played Obama. Obama has played him.

Yes, you read that right, “Obama has played him”. With cheerleaders like that, no wonder Obama thinks that he can do no wrong.

Bookmark and Share

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *