Mapping
America's Dwindling Invasion Coalition
31
August, 2013
Via Stratfor,
U.S.
President Barack Obama is evidently not getting the multinational
coalition his administration was expecting to share the burden of a
limited strike operation against Syria. The British parliament has
voted against a military intervention, and NATO has said it would not
participate in a U.S.-led mission. The
United States can either unilaterally fire a symbolic but ineffective
shot to demonstrate action for the sake of action, wage a highly
unpopular multi-month air-land attack alone or abandon the military
campaign altogether.
Without
a meaningful coalition, the United States has little choice but to
focus its efforts on a highly ambitious and difficult negotiated
settlement involving Russia and Iran. The mounting limitations on the
U.S. military option will redirect U.S. attention to an uphill
diplomatic effort with difficult negotiating partners. Russia has an
opportunity to demand U.S. attention on a number of issues related to
defining a Russian sphere of influence in former Soviet territory and
having the United States respect the boundaries that Moscow sets.
Notably, any such deal would be designed to allow Russia and Iran to
preserve political influence in Damascus. The
low prospects of that negotiation on top of the limited utility of a
unilateral punitive strike could lead the United States to back off
its position toward Syria unless it sees a significant shift from
still-wavering allies France and Turkey.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.