What actions should President Obama take in Syria and Iran? Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, gives his take on the matter in this video.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
[Diplomatic Courier:] If President Obama asked for your thoughts and advice on both Iran and Syria, what would you tell him?
[Ian Bremmer:] Well actually I think the President’s doing a pretty good job on Iran. I think that in both cases the President has shown a great deal of enthusiasm for diplomacy.
The difference is in Iran, the U.S. has very strong position and leverage. In Syria, we don’t.
In Iran, the sanctions that the U.S. has built up over many years with strong multilateral support is crippling the Iranian economy, and it has brought a new leadership into Iran. Now the Supreme Leader still runs the country, but the President, interlockers on nuclear policy, the cabinet, reflects a very different, and much more technocratic sensibility, because they desperately need the economy to improve.
We should want to engage the Iranians. We shouldn’t want to get rid of sanctions. But you should engage and let’s see what they’re prepared to do. And let’s be effusive.
Ok, so they miscommunicated on a handshake. But then the Iranian president came right back with a phone call. Why? Because they’re in trouble. We’ve got all the leverage. As long as we don’t suddenly say “fine, let’s get rid of sanctions,” which we’re not about to do, that policy has moved well.
Syria is a disaster. I mean there are so many ways it’s been a disaster. What would you not have done? If you’re going to set a red line on Syria, why would you set it by yourself? Why not get together with a few of your allies and say this is very important to us, and it’s critical, and it won’t be tolerated, and we will take action, even if you don’t say what the action is. So that politically you have the support from the Saudis, the Brits, the French, the Canadians, if at any point that red line is breached.
Then of course it was a slippery slope. Which is “well, it wasn’t really a red line. Well we don’t really want to get involved. Maybe we need some support from other countries.”
When Obama then went finally back and said, I’m going to go to Congress, and said: “on the one hand this is absolutely critical. This is an international principal that we must stand for, but I need a vote in Congress.” That really really disappointed America’s key allies around the world. Even if you believed that what you were going to do in Syria was not going to be very helpful. Even if you believed that the U.S. should’ve taken action to prevent the deaths of all these people or should’ve stayed out.
Process matters. Process to leadership matters. And the fact that the White House has said “well maybe it un-artful.” No. This was a policy failure. The fact that the Russians are now taking the lead on this issue, the fact that the United States has put itself in a corner and have basically said nothing can happen without a vote in Congress, has really undermined U.S. credibility on the issue. And also has shown what we care about in a country of over 20 million people. And we shouldn’t be in that position.
[DC:] Perhaps President Obama knows he’s in a corner. What advice would you give him now? What can he do even if he’s dug himself in a hole?
[IB:] I think on Syria it’s too late, frankly. You’ve got over 100,000 dead. You’ve got millions of refugees. It is very clear that the rebels, large groups of the rebels have given up on the U.S. and so they’ve severed their ties with the more secular opposition outside of Syria. They’ve embraced the Islamic radicals and Sharia; at this point the enemy of our enemy is our enemy. There’s very little we can do.
I think certainly as much as we can do to provide humanitarian aid is smart. I like the fact that the Swedish government came out and said that they were going to take large numbers of refugees. I think the United States could lead with allies a coalition to accept Syrian refugees. The Japanese, the Canadians—that’s an area that we could take some leadership. I mean I know it’s not a priority, I know most Americans care vastly more about what’s happening in the U.S. But that’s something we could do. It’s an example.
But those examples are small potatoes compared to what’s happening to the Syrian people, and it’s very obvious that that’s not an area where we’re prepared to take leadership on.
See the rest of the Ian Bremmer series:
- Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World
- The International Impact of the U.S. Government Shutdown
- Obama’s Second Term Foreign Policy Advisors Are the B-Team
- The Problem with Global Leadership Today
- If Only This World Leader Could Run for High Office in the U.S.
Check out all of our other videos here or on YouTube.
a global affairs media network
Ian Bremmer: Advice to Obama on Syria and Iran—Syria is a "Disaster"
October 15, 2013
What actions should President Obama take in Syria and Iran? Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, gives his take on the matter in this video.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
[Diplomatic Courier:] If President Obama asked for your thoughts and advice on both Iran and Syria, what would you tell him?
[Ian Bremmer:] Well actually I think the President’s doing a pretty good job on Iran. I think that in both cases the President has shown a great deal of enthusiasm for diplomacy.
The difference is in Iran, the U.S. has very strong position and leverage. In Syria, we don’t.
In Iran, the sanctions that the U.S. has built up over many years with strong multilateral support is crippling the Iranian economy, and it has brought a new leadership into Iran. Now the Supreme Leader still runs the country, but the President, interlockers on nuclear policy, the cabinet, reflects a very different, and much more technocratic sensibility, because they desperately need the economy to improve.
We should want to engage the Iranians. We shouldn’t want to get rid of sanctions. But you should engage and let’s see what they’re prepared to do. And let’s be effusive.
Ok, so they miscommunicated on a handshake. But then the Iranian president came right back with a phone call. Why? Because they’re in trouble. We’ve got all the leverage. As long as we don’t suddenly say “fine, let’s get rid of sanctions,” which we’re not about to do, that policy has moved well.
Syria is a disaster. I mean there are so many ways it’s been a disaster. What would you not have done? If you’re going to set a red line on Syria, why would you set it by yourself? Why not get together with a few of your allies and say this is very important to us, and it’s critical, and it won’t be tolerated, and we will take action, even if you don’t say what the action is. So that politically you have the support from the Saudis, the Brits, the French, the Canadians, if at any point that red line is breached.
Then of course it was a slippery slope. Which is “well, it wasn’t really a red line. Well we don’t really want to get involved. Maybe we need some support from other countries.”
When Obama then went finally back and said, I’m going to go to Congress, and said: “on the one hand this is absolutely critical. This is an international principal that we must stand for, but I need a vote in Congress.” That really really disappointed America’s key allies around the world. Even if you believed that what you were going to do in Syria was not going to be very helpful. Even if you believed that the U.S. should’ve taken action to prevent the deaths of all these people or should’ve stayed out.
Process matters. Process to leadership matters. And the fact that the White House has said “well maybe it un-artful.” No. This was a policy failure. The fact that the Russians are now taking the lead on this issue, the fact that the United States has put itself in a corner and have basically said nothing can happen without a vote in Congress, has really undermined U.S. credibility on the issue. And also has shown what we care about in a country of over 20 million people. And we shouldn’t be in that position.
[DC:] Perhaps President Obama knows he’s in a corner. What advice would you give him now? What can he do even if he’s dug himself in a hole?
[IB:] I think on Syria it’s too late, frankly. You’ve got over 100,000 dead. You’ve got millions of refugees. It is very clear that the rebels, large groups of the rebels have given up on the U.S. and so they’ve severed their ties with the more secular opposition outside of Syria. They’ve embraced the Islamic radicals and Sharia; at this point the enemy of our enemy is our enemy. There’s very little we can do.
I think certainly as much as we can do to provide humanitarian aid is smart. I like the fact that the Swedish government came out and said that they were going to take large numbers of refugees. I think the United States could lead with allies a coalition to accept Syrian refugees. The Japanese, the Canadians—that’s an area that we could take some leadership. I mean I know it’s not a priority, I know most Americans care vastly more about what’s happening in the U.S. But that’s something we could do. It’s an example.
But those examples are small potatoes compared to what’s happening to the Syrian people, and it’s very obvious that that’s not an area where we’re prepared to take leadership on.
See the rest of the Ian Bremmer series:
- Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World
- The International Impact of the U.S. Government Shutdown
- Obama’s Second Term Foreign Policy Advisors Are the B-Team
- The Problem with Global Leadership Today
- If Only This World Leader Could Run for High Office in the U.S.
