In many capitals across the world, including Jerusalem and Tehran, officials are focusing their attention and closely following Washington's response to the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Wednesday. This question is especially relevant because of the commitment U.S. President Barack Obama made last April when he said the use of chemical weapons would be regarded as a "game changer" (the president also used the opportunity to publicly admit for the first time that chemical weapons had been used in Syria).
An appropriate response was not forthcoming. Moreover, since then Assad has actually improved his military situation, with the help of Iran and Hezbollah. The new regime in Tehran is undoubtedly watching and gauging this commitment to Obama's other commitments, namely that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
How can U.S. foreign policy be explained in this regard? Even though the president is not the only factor in the decision-making process, the White House is undoubtedly the dominant force on these matters -- constitutionally and practically -- which pertain to molding and executing Washington's national security policies.
One of the paradoxes of global politics is that when an American citizen elects a president he essentially elects the leader of the free world. In a fascinating article to be published in the next edition of "Commentary" magazine, Elliot Abrams -- the deputy national security advisor to former President George W. Bush -- likens Obama's presidency as a "presidency of the global citizen." The basis for this moniker is Obama's own 2008 declaration in this spirit in Berlin, its main thesis being that Obama truly does not see his job as being the leader of the free world, rather as an equal citizen with the rest of the world.
This is in contrast to previous American presidents who were unwilling to relinquish America's leadership and responsibility in the free world and beyond. Even former President Jimmy Carter, who was responsible in large part for the Islamic revolution in Iran and the downfall of the Shah regime, understood toward the end of his term that his country must block Soviet attempts to expand.
The nature of Obama's presidency cannot be explained as weak or as classically indicative of a liberalist committed to human rights. As a rule of thumb, weak people do not reach the White House. His clashes with a conservative Congress do not coincide with a weak nature. Liberals do not ignore human rights the way Obama's White House did during the protests in Tehran in 2009, or as it is doing today in Syria. Even the argument that America is simply isolationist is unsatisfactory, because Secretary of State John Kerry's aggressive push to renew Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is incongruent with isolationism.
Obama is a rather suspicious president well versed in safeguarding his presidency against all threats. His United States will act on the Syrian front, or anywhere else in the Middle East, only when Obama fears that a lack of involvement threatens his presidency. Obama's persistent war against al-Qaida, by use of any means at his disposal, does not fit with the image of an isolationist president, rather a president who acts determinedly only according to the narrow interests of the White House.
He is set on puling troops out of long-time war zones, because this will help improve his status in Washington. If he becomes convinced that chemical weapons were indeed used in Syria -- he will act in conjunction with other international elements.
The writer is a professor of international relations at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו