No longer the world's Top Cop, US policies toward Syria are now the result of our being bullied

[leveymg]

and blackmailed, and just plain bought out, by countries in the region: primarily Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

As for Israel's bullying and blackmail, even the New York Times and ABC have observed it. Almost exactly a year before the gas attack in Ghouta, on Aug 20,2012, Obama made an announcement.

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.

To many, Wednesday’s attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons deployed. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/

What is the context of that speech? According to the NYT the following day, Israel was signaling that if the US did not take a harder line, it would act preemptively as it had done in bombing a Syrian reactor under construction: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=world&

Mr. Obama, who has said little about Syria in recent weeks, stressed the regional risk from its unconventional weapons. “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria,” he said. “It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us.”

His comments seemed aimed as much at the Israelis as the Syrians. Israeli officials have indicated they might intervene if they thought those weapons were on the loose and might be unleashed on their territory.

By hinting that the United States might participate in locating and neutralizing the weapons, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to forestall the possibility of an Israeli move into Syria — and the reaction it might provoke.

As for the undue and improper influence of Saudi Arabia in this matter, the actions are a bit different, as the instrument is commercial and financial rather than overt political pressure and threatening of direct military attack if the US does not do it, itself. By now, I hope you are aware of Prince Bandar's recent travels and attempts to bribe the Russians and the United States. Bandar's "offer" to the U.S. was characterized by John Kerry this way:

"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411806/Offer-table-Arab-countries-pay-scale-U-S-invasion-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html#ixzz2ePcq2S2O

These things are, I am afraid, evidence of a terrible weakness and vulnerability of the United States, not the exercise of any unchallenged authority or its overwhelming power in the world.

We have been sunk low, not by our enemies, but by our putative "allies."

[L0oniX]

1. Who ever has control of the most oil is the top dog. n/t