Memorandom of US diplomats and the White House….US new understanding of the Middle East

the cautious and hesitant policy of the United States towards the developments in the Syrian crisis pushed fifty one officials of the US State Department to sign a secret memorandum demanded the White House to launch military strikes on the Syrian regime to force him to abide by the accord of the cessation of fighting activities , as well as support the political transition without Bashar al-Assad. The memo called the «deliberate use of long-range weapons and air weapons» against the regime of Bashar Assad, saying that the current situation in Syria is still leading to a «disastrous situation in the humanitarian sphere and on the diplomatic level and terrorism.»Signatories of the memorandum stressed that «the moral logic to take action to stop the massacres and the thousands of victims in Syria after five years of a terrible war is clear and incontestable».
And the internal memo, leaked from the US State Department on Syria, reflected the disappointment that is long-standing among a broad spectrum of US diplomats and officials because of the way the White House dealt with the Syrian file. While its importance stems up, which were leaked to the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times newspapers, that it raise the alarm of dire consequences to leave the Syrian file to the wide open, without practicing of the Obama administration a real pressure that may lead to a change in the Syrian regime’s accounts. The memorandum stressed that the Obama administration’s policy currently in place works against the Syrian opposition, and assist President Bashar al-Assad to retain power in Damascus.
A spokesman for the US State Department confirmed receipt of the memo, but abstained to comment on its contents, but an official who is aware of the note, said it had sent “because the status quo can not continue,” and said that the signers of the memorandum urged the US administration to direct the threat of credible military action against government of Bashar al-Assad,but the Syrian government will not feel for any pressure to force it to negotiate with the opposition, and that this diplomatic position expressed fears that the collapse of the peace process, which is sponsored by Russia and the United States will be for the benefit of the Damascus government.
Perhaps we can say that the trend, which began to emerge in Washington and calls for military strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, based on merely on the threat of use of force in dealing with the developments of the Syrian crisis can produce positive repercussions for Washington, similar to what happened in the lastSeptember 2013 when President Barack Obama has threatened to use force to respond to the accusation of Bashar al-Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in the attack on the eastern and western Algota of the Rif Damascus, in August of the same year, which in the end led to the dismantling of chemical Syrian arms after initiative that Russia put forward in this context .
Due to the importance of this note , the US Secretary of State, John Kerry was met with ten s of diplomats of signatories on it , and the Foreign Ministry spokesman John Kirby said during the daily press conference, that the meeting lasted 30 minutes, pointing out that all the diplomats participanting in the meeting, are working in the headquarters of the Ministry in Washington and “Kirby” did not disclose information relating to the content of the meeting, saying only: “Kerry left the meeting very positively,” adding, “the meeting was in the form of an exchange of views, and Kerry gave information about Washington’s policy in Syria,” and “John Kirby,” refused to confirm the nature of the discussions or the content of the petition, which reports said it was calling to launch strikes on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Against this note, the positions were varied between supporters and opponents to it, by the US and internationally. At the level of an American support , their support for the memorandum on was based on the refusal to retreat of the importance of the Middle East in American politics and mounting the trend of the calls to reduce US involvement in that region since 2005, and this trend was confirmed with the arrival of President Barack Obama’s administration to the White House in 2009, where the administration estimated that the major interests of the United States , during the atheist and the twentieth century, concentrated in the South and Southeast Asia, prompting it to develop a strategy called “turning eastward,” and this is refleted from their point of view on the weak performance of the US policy on the Syrian crisis and this is what they reject.
From the politicians supporter to this memorandum is the Republican Senator, John McCain , saying that US President Barack Obama, is responsible for a lot of international events because of his failed policies in the Middle East , and expressed support for the demands of the employees of US State Department to launch strikes on the Syrian regime who said that Moscow and Iran’s interference saved him of quick fall , also considered that Russia has returned to the Middle East because of US political failure . John McCain responded to a question a about the petition, signed by dozens of State Department officials to protest on the White House’s policy toward Syria and demand the implementation of military strikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad saying : that the petition ” bearing the signatures of very impressive and professional figures such as former ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who enjoys wide respect, ” McCain continued to confirm his agreement with the content of petition , saying:” Daash ultimately is not the body that are throwing explosive barrels on the thousands of civilian women and children, not the party that the use of chemical weapons to kill thousands of innocent people and it is not the body who detained the thousands in the prisons, “a reference to the practices he accuses the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
John McCain went on to draw attention to the level international alliances of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its repercussions on the US position, saying: “atrocities committed by the regime of Bashar Assad has not only distorted him , but also its repercussions affected all allies today from Iran to Russia,” McCain said that former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Central intelligence agency, CIA, Gen. David Petraeus, who had demanded in 2011 to train and arm the Syrian opposition and the free Syrian army to end what is happening on the ground, but President Obama refused to do so, adding, “We are after eight years of Obama’s rule, got tired of using old coat-hanger throwing always the fault of the era of the rule of former President George Bush. ”
Republican senator added: “The truth is that, by the virtue of applying the policy of reinforcing the forces in Iraq the conflict was ended and to expel al-Qaeda to Syria whereas the organization was turned to Daash and the consequences were left that we see today. President Obama’s failure to arrange the survival of US forces in Iraq has led to this unstable situation, which we had expected before to happen, “McCain accused Obama failed policies of causing the largest wave of refugees in the world since World War II and endangering America and Europe for many attacks saying:” This is not coincidence, but due to the failure of Obama’s policies, despite objections and recommendations made by a lot of talented and smart personalities such as Petraeus and Panetta and Clinton. ”
In this context pro-memorandum , “Ed Royce,” Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who belongs to the Republican Party, “he said even the State Department in Obama’s own management believes that the US administration’s policy towards Syria is failing ,” and added, “Iran, Russia and the Al-Assad are the ones who agitate the situation in Syria , ignoring a cease-fire and allowing for Assad to continue the war crimes against his own people. ” For his part, former US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said it was “a mirror of a disappointment to everyone towards the current situation.” Crowley adds that the leaked memo where the presumed secrecy was lifted on it indicates the message is meant to be directed that the “current efforts are ineffective” .the former US official told the Aljazeera net that the administration had discussed additional options on the Syrian crisis, but it does not propose to hit the Syrian regime forces as the memorandum of diplomats calls . and he added that “there is in fact part of truth to what is stated in the memorandum that Assad does not feel for any enough pressure on the ground.” However, he wondered about the extent of the success of any military strikes in changing the accounts of the regime and then Russia and Iran, and he saw that changing of the accounts of the regime is linked mainly to achieve the militarily progress by the Syrian opposition .
He continued in this context , the defender for the memorandum, the chairman of the US Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, through his report, which he referred to the following: “Five years after the Civil War, and 400 people dead and displaced more than 10 million people, dozens of US diplomats wrote note to their superiors, which they said the US policy toward Syria was failed, and there is a need for change. ” “The most important thing in the memorandum of the 51 diplomats, they defied and told the truth, even if their calls are rejected now, and may be welcomed by the next inhabitant of the White House, especially as Hillary Clinton showed when she was secretary of state in preparation for the use of force to achieve US foreign policy goals.”
it is worth to be noted that the opposed Americans to this note see in direct US military involvement in the Syrian crisis would involve the US to a new war in the Middle East, especially after the negative results of US military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It would also contradict with Washington ‘s efforts to give priority to the war against the “Daash” organization , which began threatening Western interests directly, where its understandings with Russia have , that led to the issuance of UN Security Council Resolution 2268, a positive impact to inflict prominent human and material losses on the organization in Syria and Iraq. Also its military intervention would escalate the tension in relations with Russia, in light of the breadth of the differences between the United States and Russia on a number of other files such as to deploy parts of a missile shield in Romania as well as the Ukrainian crisis, in away that will reduce the likelihood of the success of efforts exerted by Moscow and Washington in the current period in order to enhance opportunities of the reaching to the political settlement of the crisis .
The US situation on the Syrian crisis is clear and that the United States would not intervene militarily against the regime in Damascus, and the first battle today is against «Daash» and not against Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, the Obama administration is trying to evade of « Syrian armed opposition represented by the supreme body of the negotiations » and agree implicitly with Russia to replace the opposition on the ground with Kurdish and tribal forces to constitute a « Syria democratic forces », the first mission of it is to fight «Daash» and does not bring down the regime. This trend coincides with an international inaction in the Security Council and the United Nations, where it is practically reduced the Syrian issue to the refugee crisis and a humanitarian tragedy that requires a focus on the introduction of humanitarian aid away from being categorized politically and deliberately to put it away from the path of accounting to commit crimes and atrocities. The «statement of Geneva» has been aborted which spoke about the political transition process of full executive authority. And the «Vienna process» created by Russia has achieved as desired by and stopped as planned by Moscow to stop . the Security Council members are restricted in a void statements and bowed in front of what imposed by the Russian – Iranian policy acquiescently without «Plan B». Secretariat of the United Nations swallowed its words about «accountability» and underwent to the Russian – American partners in the Syrian tragedy ‘s management without that dare to protest. Thus , the United Nations lost the moral leadership, and abandoned the principles of accounting, it backed away from values, and agreed to be the operational instrument to cancel «statement of Geneva», and hid in a dress of its weakness when it was shocked by other Imminent Deadline for political process which is in the first of August, when it was supposed to begin a transitional political process less assertive than the one launched by the «Geneva statement». The only sympathy is that American leadership and Russian leadership lost the moral compass in Syria before the leadership of the United Nations was obliged to join them.
What insiders say on the developments in the Syrian arena is that Washington and Moscow seem are consistent now on a minimum of compatibility, a «democratic forces Syria» consisting of Kurds and Arab tribes, and that the European and American experts on the ground to help these forces to fight «Daash» first. These forces include minorities and does not involve or Salafi and Jihadist movements. They look like the alternative which is prepared for the forces of the Syrian opposition under the brigade of «the Supreme Commission for negotiations» which receive the support of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others.
Therefore, Russia and the United States to meet today to support the «democratic forces of Syria» as from the standpoint of Moscow is the secular alternative from other opposition forces in Syria along the lines of those represented in the «supreme body of the negotiations», and from the stand point of Washington forces which are capable of fighting «Daash» practically On the ground. And both agree to the viewpoint of each other . The Barack Obama administration was supporting the rise of Islamists to power in the early «Arab Spring» in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Faced by the Russian leadership of President Vladimir Putin at a fierce confrontation until they met in Syria and Moscow was able gradually to bring Washington to its camp, with the exception of dispute on Turkey as well as Egypt to some extent.
Russian American convergence in the Syrian crisis comes within the United States strategy toward the Middle East, and could in this context to show features of three US consecutive strategies:
• Creative chaos that targeted the removal of support on the existing rule regimes in some Arab countries, and give an opportunity to the moderate Islamic trend imagined by US policy to be alternative for existing systems, and Islamic extremism at the same time. events of the last five years have revealed for silliness of this perception, because there is no real differences between the different currents that adopt calls of the Holy policy, whether were moderate or radical, as they are mutually supportive for each other, as revealed by the experience of rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt , Libya, and Tunisia. And all pursue policies that are fueling the pattern of exclusion and extremism. As well as because of the refusal of the peoples of the region of this option.
• Sectarian balance policies based on finding a strong sectarian balance of Sunni-Shia, between Iran and the predominantly Sunni Arab states. It has led towards creating this balance to dredge and exacerbating sectarian conflict, especially with the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia for spheres of influence in the region .Regional result was only to strengthen the forces of terrorism and its organizations regionally, spreading extremism values, feelings of sectarian hatred between important groups of Muslims who have suffered alienation or culturally marginalized across the world.
• With the emergence of the risks of both the previous two strategies, the presence of US acceptance seemed, since mid-2015, to try to establish a multilateral and balanced security system in the region, so play some regional alliances , in addition to a direct presence of the international forces with interests in the region , the security roles that are limited and competing , under US auspices. It was emerged in the US acceptance of a Russian military role directly in Syria, and the establishment of a British base in Bahrain, in the first return to the presence of British military directly in the area since it was left in 1971, as well as allowing a French role in some of the pillars which are estimated by French politics they are important for its security or economic interests .
The dilemma of this latest strategy is to compete in the roles and security agendas between the regional powers, threatening to a continuous erupt of conflicts between them, or with the growing international forces seeking to the establishment of a new security centers in the region. Moreover, it does not seem to be any other international force willing to bear any security burden beyond to ensure the immediate and specific interests of it in the region. Such as the Russian presence in the eastern Mediterranean, or the efforts of China to establish a military base in Djibouti to secure the shipping lanes with East Africa and across the Red Sea. And enhances the likelihood of the limited involvement of international powers, unlike the United States in the formulation of any new security equations in the Middle East, the growing prominence of the Arctic region as a center of ample riches from oil and gas and other natural resources, as well as the gradual growing in importance as a navigation passage even if it is seasonally , but shorter and more secure than traditional else navigational routes, especially those that pass through the Middle East.
The US vice-president of “Joe Biden” of the most prominent US officials who rejects the note,as he criticized the signatories of the diplomats , and said that he and President Barack Obama, are ready always to listen to the views of all diplomats, however, that the memorandum signed by 51 diplomats, will not give rise to useful results in terms of Syria, “Joe Biden” stressed that there is no single solution, to stop the war in Syria, and solving problems suffered from it . concerning the claim of diplomats, in their statement, the use of force against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, “Joe Biden said ,” military intervention is not a true way , and he considered that the note does not bear any concrete proposals, also he stressed his opposition to military intervention in Syria and Libya.
“Josh Ernst,” White House spokesman responded with a memorandum of diplomats in line with the vision of Barack Obama to resolve the Syrian crisis, he said that President Barack Obama will not change his mind about his approach to the Syrian civil war, even if he read the memorandum of 51 American diplomats, which calls for directing direct US military strikes to force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to negotiate for a peace. He said during a regular press briefing, by the current June 20 : “Well .. I do not know whether the president had read the note, but Obama stands by his belief that there is no military solution to the ongoing conflict five years ago in Syria.” He added that the lessons that the United States has learned from the war on Iraq in 2003, confirms that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria.
He said: ” our current policy in Syria prevented a repeat mistakes of previous administrations,” pointing out that one can not achieve success if he relied on a military solution in Syria. He continued: “I think that the most important lessons we learned after the intervention in Iraq that was made by the previous administration in 2003.” He pointed that “the president welcomes anyone who has a good idea, but the president is quite clear about the principles that we need to abide by in order to protect our interests “.
And he doubts about voiding war with Syria in the event of resorting to the military option against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. He said: «I think that means that we must direct US military force against the Assad regime, and I think it raises a lot of questions: First, how this can be done without harming innocent civilians? Second, not sure of the legal mandate, which will be based on by the President to do something similar. Third, it seems as an involvement , is the issue limited to one round of missile strikes, and then go after that for a month trying to negotiate again ? In case of not achieved anything, do you wage more air strikes, or should we continue to escalate our military action? What is the end point? It is difficult to end up the issue without a war on a sovereign nation receives support from Russia and Iran. »
Oh my God! If there is no poor tactic to defend the failed policy of this magnitude of the insult to the intelligence of 51 diplomats , what is said by Josh Ernest is a classic draft. There is no need to refute every sentence uttered by him noting that every word constitute an evidence and a dictionary of Obama’s policy . This response disclose the legacy of US policy toward Syria, which is the lack of any basis for the claim that the United States has Supreme moral ground. This policy has taken from the United States the ability to say that it is of values higher than the values of other countries. Therefore, the bold protest came of such a large number of American diplomats who wanted the United States not to lose the distinction in this important place in the world . Such protest was not to come from diplomats in Russia, nor the staff of the United Nations. The United States does not stop at the department or at the policy or even at a president. The least we can do to recognize to it is the importance of the dare of American diplomats to oppose their president and tell him: « you humiliated us morally and humanly and in values.»
As for the international positions that are pros and cons of the memorandum of US diplomats , for the first level can be indicated by the Saudi Foreign Minister ‘s statement Adel al-Jubeir, when he was asked during a visit to Washington, the position of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to it , he responded by saying: “We said since the beginning of the Syrian crisis that is supposed there will be more decisive intervention in Syria. ” This is a clear indication of the position of Saudi Arabia in support of the use of military force to force Assad to leave for the rule of Syria. As for Russia, it represents a rejection position of the memorandum as it quickly to criticize it , where Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said that the call for an American military strikes in Syria is to contradict with the decisions of the Security Council, referring to the recent decision No. 2268 issued on February 26 2016, after the understandings between Russia and the United States, who has acknowledged the cessation of hostile activities between the Syrian regime and the opposition forces, which raises important significance is that any possible change in US policy toward the Syrian crisis will impose direct implications on the relations between Washington and Moscow .
From the above it can be said the memorandum may not lead to a change in American politics, but it has attracted attention to the strength of its content in that they reflect the resentment unprecedented toward the White House policy, expressed in dozens of officials to follow the American policy towards Syria , which is a very large number, although it does not include diplomats from the first row. It is the first of its kind to make its way in the American foreign channels, it is rare for diplomats to oppose with this number a stance adopted by the White House. However, the timing of this note was probably on the missing time, with little expectation that contribute to the change of the policy of President Barack Obama’s administration, which will leave after a seven-month . The position of the White House’s rejection of this Memorandum may confirm Obama ‘s policy and the United States after him “understeer in the east”, and that the lack of initiative and reaction to crises in the Middle East, including the Syrian crisis is itself the US policy may need some time to accept.

Rawabet Research and Strategic Studies Center