How much leverage does the U.S. have over Syria?
One recurring line of criticism against the Obama administration during the "Arab spring" is that it has been more willing to condemn and push-aside America's erstwhile allies than her enemies. For instance, here's Elliott Abrams:
Second, the Friday statement continues to appeal to Assad: â??We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people.â? That might have been acceptable 300 deaths ago, but it is now absurd. The President called on Egyptâ??s Hosni Mubarak, a long-time American ally, to leave; why the reticence about Assad, a long-time American enemy?
I think aside from the fact that the administration is more or less making this up as it goes along, the basic fact is that the U.S. had influence over Egypt's military, which was the only institution that could push Mubarak aside. What leverage does the U.S. have over Syria, or institutions within the Syrian state that could oust the regime? Paradoxically, the more isolated from the U.S. the country is, the less ability the U.S. has to effect regime change when the country's citizens revolt. Of course, President Obama can get up and denounce Assad more vigorously, but it's not clear what that would accomplish on the ground.
The other alternative is to try to transform the thus-far peaceful protests in Syria into an armed revolt against the Syrian regime. As in Libya, it's not clear whether that is a formula for swiftly deposing the Assad/Baathist regime in favor of something better or for starting a prolonged civil war.
(AP Photo)
