Obama Revises Disastrous ISIS, Syria Policies

The Obama administration last week ramped up military actions against Islamic State terrorists — and also sharply downgraded its failing campaign to overthrow Syria’s government and to demonize Russia’s.

By week’s end, the United States and Russia joined forces in a 15-0 UN Security Council vote Dec. 18 creating a peace process for Syria over the next 18 months.

Meanwhile, President Obama chided Republicans in an NPR interview aired Monday, Dec. 21, for what he called a lack of realistic alternatives to his anti-ISIS policies, as reported here.

That UN process is likely to prove unworkable because it does not require Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s resignation, as demanded by American war hawks and Islamic rebels who are backed by Turkish and Gulf State supporters especially.

Also, most GOP presidential contenders and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton continued to call during presidential debates last week for Assad’s ouster and a U.S.-enforced no fly zone preventing Syria’s government and allies from flying over disputed territory in the nation.

The UN plan also fails to specify which rebel groups are excluded as terrorists from the peace process. That eligibility gap portends continuing stalemate during next year in a pattern that has doomed previous UN efforts to resolve the Syrian war.

Despite the dim outlook for a UN peace plan, it serves as a face-saver for Obama during the last year of his presidency. Obama can side-step the consequences of his years of covert warmongering in Syria, which has primarily advanced the empire-building agenda of special interests under the rhetoric of humanitarian and democratic values. Middle East Eye’s Dr. Gareth Porter amplified the reasons in Why the US pushes the illusory Syrian peace process.

Most importantly for the American public, the UN agreement could hinder political demagogues risking another chaotic war so they can win 2016 presidential support from special interests and low-information voters. The heavily propagandized public tends to regard the issues as a simple application of force against ISIS, Russia, Iran, and Syria.

Fortunately, Obama backed off from the brink of military confrontation with Russia that could have become extremely serious.

A key juncture occurred when Secretary of State John Kerry (shown above a week ago with President Obama in the Oval Office) traveled to Moscow for meetings Dec. 15. Before the trip, Kerry and Obama, had been issuing their usual denunciations of Russia and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Kerry met behind closed doors with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (shown at left in a photo from their meeting). They emerged with an agreement that omitted any mention of Assad’s departure.

The most likely reasons for the U.S. shift?

The Obama administration is under increasing pressure to become more effective against ISIS following the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, , as Obama acknowledged in his Dec. 21 NPR interview. 

In contrast to a go-slow approach by the United States under Obama’s anti-ISIS envoy John Allen, Russia began a bombing campaign Sept. 30 at Syria’s invitation. Since then, Russia has made hundreds of bombing runs providing devastating air cover for Syrian army advances regaining territory from rebels.

Russia also has been exposing fighter, arms, and oil smuggling connections between ISIS and allied forces. The most notably smuggling routes have been via Turkey, a NATO member whose President Recep Tayyip Erdogan increasingly focuses on supporting Islamist causes and suppressing dissent. Turkey has especially targeted those in the media and ethnic Kurds whose compatriots in Syria are the main U.S. allies on the ground fighting ISIS.