{"id":3023,"date":"2013-05-02T01:30:28","date_gmt":"2013-05-02T05:30:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/iranian-americans.com\/?p=3023"},"modified":"2013-10-29T01:34:09","modified_gmt":"2013-10-29T05:34:09","slug":"obama-policy-on-syria-set-by-iran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/iranian-americans.com\/obama-policy-on-syria-set-by-iran\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama policy on Syria set by Iran"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"redline\"<\/a>Iranian Forum, May 2, 2013<\/p>\n

President Obama’s two year-long inaction in Syria has culminated into a public embarrassment after the Syrian regime crossed Obama’s\u00a0redline<\/a>\u00a0and used chemical weapon against its own people but the administration tries hard to avoid any action to hold Syrian regime accountable. Obviously, president Obama continues to stay on the sideline, watching the massacre of Syrian people, rising of fundamentalists, and the spread of conflict into Iraq and Lebanon.<\/p>\n

Missing from the public debate about Obama’s Syrian policy (if there is one) is the decisive factor that shapes US policy in the Middle East and explains the inaction in Syria: the Iranian regime has been drawing its own redlines in Iraq, \u00a0Lebanon and Syria and the US administration has been meticulously respecting them.<\/p>\n

Recently, Javier Solana the former European chief negotiator with Iran\u00a0declared<\/a>\u00a0during a Brookings Institution conference that the US avoids a more active role in Syria because Iran would respond to US and as a result, a deal on Iranian nuclear issue would probably collapse:<\/p>\n

“I think the United States has not taken a more active role in Syria from the beginning because they didn\u2019t want to disturb the possibility — I mean, to give them the space to negotiate with Tehran. They probably knew that getting very engaged on the (inaudible) even militarily could contribute to a break in the potential negotiations with Tehran.”<\/p>\n

This is not the first time that the US administration’s illusionary hope to reach a deal with Tehran causes policy missteps and capitulation to the Iranian dictates. After the 2010 parliamentary election in Iraq and the victory of secular Ayad Allawi, the US bowed to the Mullahs’ demand and supported the Iranian designated candidate\u00a0Nouri al-Maliki to become prime minister, even though the seculars, Kurds and Sunnis could form a majority coalition in the parliament. \u00a0At that time, Obama was preparing a smooth withdrawal from Iraq and was counting on Iranian cooperation. In fact, the Iranian Mullahs blackmailed the US government.<\/p>\n

The Iran\u2019s Supreme Leader is closely observing the US systematic surrender to the Iranian regime\u2019s bullying in the region and concludes that the Obama administration will not react to the Iranian decision to cross the final redline and acquire the nuclear weapon.<\/p>\n

The US administration’s illusionary hope to reach a deal with Iran and the wrong calculation that Iran reciprocates US goodwill gestures undermine US leadership and increase Mullah\u2019s madness in the region.