Obama’s crown of thorns
The US president’s letter to Khamenei could explain the resignation of his defence secretary.
Obama’s re-engagement with Iran and his letter to Khamenei shows that he is aware of the need to open a new chapter in US foreign policy.
Two events in the past month have shaken the foundations of American foreign policy. In late October, just as the US Congressional election results confirmed that the Republican Party had seized the Senate, news leaked that President Barack Obama had written a private letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, urging him to conclude the much-awaited nuclear agreement as speedily as possible. And on November 24, he virtually dismissed his defence secretary, Chuck Hagel.
Neither the White House nor Hagel has cited reasons for his exit, but it is apparent that it was over serious differences on how to conduct the war on ISIS — the renegade self-styled Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. No one has been able to figure out what these differences were. Many possibilities have been aired in the American media, but the trigger almost certainly was a memo sent to the White House sometime in October, in which Hagel criticised the administration’s Syria policy for, as the New York Times put it, “failing to connect the campaign against the Islamic State to a broader struggle against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria”.
Hagel may not have known that Obama had written to Khamenei. But if he did, his memo would have amounted to an ultimatum demanding that the US commit itself irrevocably to a war on Assad, in addition to the ISIS. Had Obama agreed, it would have brought his ongoing negotiations with Iran to an abrupt end. Reconciling the US’s commitment to destroying ISIS with its commitment to end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran requires decisions that only the president can make. Whether he intended it or not, Hagel’s memo, therefore, crossed a genuine red line.
Hagel’s request for a clear commitment to fight both Assad and the ISIS is understandable. The US is being drawn steadily deeper into another war in Iraq. That war cannot be won without sending in ground troops to recapture and hold the ground currently occupied by the ISIS. With Iraq’s army in a shambles and the US and EU reluctant to commit their own troops to another bloody conflict, these can only come from either Syria and Iran, or Turkey. Since Obama has publicly ruled out cooperation with Syria and Iran, that has left only Turkey.
But Turkey’s cooperation is only available at a price. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is prepared to join the battle only if the US commits itself to ridding Syria of the Assad regime as well, and has resorted to obstruction bordering on blackmail to force the US to agree. Turkey has stalled coalition attempts to use its air force bases and forced aircraft to fly from aircraft carriers or bases as much as 1,300 km away. Although it claims to have closed the Syrian borders, jihadists from Europe and north Africa continue to pour across it and now make up more than half of the ISIS’s total strength.
But Erdogan used his blackmailing power most openly at Kobani, the principal city of Syrian Kurdistan, that global TV has turned into a battle the US cannot afford to lose. His troops and tanks watched the slaughter taking place a few hundred metres away without firing a single shot, stopping Kurds who had fled across the border from going back to help their brethren and preventing arms from being delivered to them. Erdogan has thus sent Obama the message that Turkey can make the difference between success and failure in the battle against the ISIS, but once his troops have entered Syria, they must be allowed to carry on towards Damascus to oust the Assad regime.
Hagel’s memo and subsequent dismissal show that he was prepared to go along with Erdogan’s plans. But Obama is not. The obvious reason is that as president, he can no more submit to highly public blackmail by a Nato partner than afford to lose to the ISIS. But a profoundly more important one is that allowing Turkey to do so would almost certainly trigger a larger conflagration in the Middle East.
Syria has been targeted for regime change only because Assad has stubbornly refused to break his links with Iran. Iran is therefore not likely to stand idly by if Turkey were to invade Syria. Russia too has invested far more than mere arms and economic aid in Syria’s fight to survive. With near-Cold War conditions developing once more in Europe, its desire to avoid a confrontation with Nato in other theatres is declining.
It is difficult to predict what the two countries might do were Turkey to invade Syria. The only constant in war is the speed at which it can go out of control and have wholly unintended consequences. Should they decide to go directly to Syria’s aid or launch diversionary attacks along Turkey’s eastern and northern borders to split its forces, Turkey would invoke Article 5 of the Nato charter and force members to come to its aid. That would recreate the conditions that led, a century ago, to World War I. But this time, the belligerents would be nuclear-armed.
Hagel can be excused for not being able to foresee these consequences, for the buck didn’t stop with him. But it does stop with Obama. Obama’s re-engagement with Iran and his letter to Khamenei show that he is aware of the need to open a new chapter in US foreign policy. He knows that the least costly and surest way of destroying the ISIS is with the help of its natural foes, Syria and Iran. He has gone too far in demonising Syria to be able to make an about-turn now. But he can do so through Iran. To enter into even a tacit military alliance with Iran, however, he must first lift most of the sanctions imposed on it. And he cannot do that till Iran agrees to a nuclear treaty that satisfies all concerned it will not start another covert programme to develop nuclear weapons.
His letter was almost certainly intended to underline the immensely high stakes that ride upon securing a satisfactory agreement. Getting Iran, his own administration, country and the world to understand the resulting ambivalence is the crown of thorns he is now willing to wear.
Jha is a senior journalist and author
Share
