“The Amateur” Obama weighs his Syria options

Would U.S. President Barack Obama -- who former President Bill Clinton dismissed as an incompetent “amateur” who “doesn’t know how the world works” – approve arming Syrian opposition forces this week?

I doubt very much, though I hope he proves me wrong.

The Obama administration ordered strategy sessions on Syria after thousands of Iran’s Lebanese Hezbollah militiamen poured into the country to help regime forces capture the border town of Qusayr last week and press on with a campaign to clear rebels across the heart of Syria.

Top aides from the State and Defense Departments, the CIA, and other agencies gathered for a ‘‘deputies meeting’’ at the White House yesterday, with officials saying a decision on arming beleaguered rebels could happen later this week.

They were seeking to lay the groundwork for a meeting that President Obama will hold with his senior national security staff, reportedly planned for tomorrow, Wednesday.

Secretary of State John Kerry postponed a planned Middle East trip to participate in the White House discussions.

While nothing has been concretely decided, U.S. officials said President Obama was leaning closer toward signing off on sending weapons to vetted, moderate rebel units.

Obama already has ruled out any intervention that would require U.S. military boots on the ground.

Other options such as deploying American air power to ground the regime's jets, gunships and other aerial assets are now being more seriously debated, the officials said, while cautioning that a no-fly zone or any other action involving U.S. military deployments in Syria were far less likely right now.

The president also has declared chemical weapons use by the Assad regime a "redline" for more forceful U.S. action.

American allies, including France and Britain, determined with near certitude that Syrian forces have used low levels of sarin in several attacks, but the administration is still studying the evidence. The U.S. officials said responses that will be mulled over in this week's meetings concern the deteriorating situation on the ground in Syria, independent of final confirmation of possible chemical weapons use.

Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said the Obama administration was continually looking at ways to strengthen the opposition but had nothing new to announce.

"At the president's direction, his national security team continues to consider all possible options that would accomplish our objectives of helping the Syrian opposition serve the essential needs of the Syrian people and hastening a political transition to a post-Assad Syria," she said.

"We have prepared a wide range of options for the president's consideration, and internal meetings to discuss the situation in Syria are routine," she said. "The United States will continue to look for ways to strengthen the capabilities of the Syrian opposition, though we have no new announcements at this time."

One reason why I expect the president to continue slow walking on Syria is his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the June 17-18 G8 summit in Northern Ireland’s Lough Erne.

I can’t imagine him burying the planned Geneva-2 peace conference agreed with Russia by announcing any time soon an overt and unequivocal measure to shore up the Syrian opposition.

Editorially, columnist Elias Harfouche, writing today for the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, says:

The Syrians did not need the Qusayr tragedy to ascertain the depth of the Obama Administration’s treachery and deceit.

Obama told them time and again Assad’s days are numbered, the use of chemical weapons is a redline and the massacre of civilians is unacceptable.

All the Syrians got from these empty promises and farcical warnings was more killings, massacres and sarin gas attacks by the Syrian regime…

The Syrians never asked the Obama Administration to put U.S. boots on the ground and fight the regime on their behalf. All they asked for was a modicum of power balance on the ground.

They appealed to the United States not to prevent her allies from putting their shoulder to the wheel of the opposition, at a time when President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was being fully armed and funded by Iran and having its military arsenal ceaselessly replenished by Russia.

Bill Clinton was not dramatizing when he dismissed Obama as inept, saying, “Obama doesn't know how to be president. He doesn't know how the world works. He's incompetent. He's an amateur!”

The bystander president is not only undermining America’s national interests, but also our region’s confessional and social stability.

His ill thought withdrawal of U.S. troops presented Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. His spineless response to Iran and Hezbollah’s brazen intervention in the Syria fighting was an expression of “concern.”

Obama has proved to be ignorant of the region’s history and sensitivities by allowing Iraq and Syria – once cradles of the two most important empires in Arab history – to fall into the lap of Iran, the Arab world’s strategic rival for power and influence…

Russia on Golan

Separately, Israel has given Russia an official reply to its offer to send peacekeepers to the Golan Heights, but does not want to make that reply public, an Israeli deputy foreign minister told RIA Novosti yesterday. Other Israeli officials have revealed contradictory feelings about the offer.

“Israel’s position was expressed openly and unambiguously during a conversation between the two countries’ leaders. Sometimes there are things that are best left on that level,” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin said, referring to a telephone conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Putin.

Putin on Friday said Russia was ready to deploy troops to the Golan Heights to replace nearly 400 Austrian peacekeepers being pulled out of a UN monitoring mission due to intense fighting in Syria.

Although Elkin was tightlipped about Israel’s reply to Putin’s offer, other officials have revealed conflicting views about Russian troops in the area.

Israeli Deputy Interior Minister Faina Kirshenbaum, currently on a visit to Moscow, said Monday she thought Israel would not oppose the deployment of Russian peacekeepers.

“If President Putin has decided to deploy his forces there, I don’t think Israel will oppose that. We always want somebody to be there to monitor the situation,” she told Ekho Moskvy radio. “We would like any forces that could assume responsibility. Those can be Russian, Austrian or Australian. That doesn’t make any difference to us at all.”

Yuval Steinitz, Israeli minister of international, intelligence and strategic affairs, said Friday that Putin’s idea of sending Russian peacekeepers to the Golan Heights to replace the Austrian contingent was “unrealistic.”

In Beirut, Rosanna Boumounsef, in her column today for the independent daily an-Nahar, notes that the Syrian army has asked the IDF not to hit its tanks in the Golan and that contrary to its 1974 Disengagement Agreement with Syria, Israel is allowing Assad’s army to keep a military presence in the area of separation of forces.

She quotes from UN Report this part of a note submitted to the Security Council last Friday by UN Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous:

During the (June 6) clashes, SAAF (Syrian Arab Armed Forces) reinforced its presence in the area of separation with five main battle tanks and five armored personnel carriers, moving in the direction of Quneitra. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) informed the UNDOF (UN Disengagement Observe Force) Force Commander that should the movement of SAAF tanks continue, the IDF would take action. Subsequently, the UNDOF Force Commander conveyed the message to the Senior Syrian Arab Delegate (SSAD), UNDOF’s main interlocutor on the Bravo side. The SSAD informed the UNDOF Force Commander that the presence of the tanks was solely for the purpose of fighting the armed members of the opposition and asked that the IDF not take action. Also, during the fighting, armed members of the opposition took control temporarily of the Bravo Gate. After several hours of clashes between the SAAF and the armed members of the opposition, the SAAF regained control of the Bravo Gate and fighting in the area had subsided. Currently, four main battle tanks and three armored personnel carriers remain in the area of separation, in violation of the Disengagement Agreement.

Beirut Shiite protester killed outside Iran embassy

The late Hashim Salman (left) and Hezbollah men on the attack

A Lebanese Shiite in his twenties was killed and five injured outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut on Sunday after Hezbollah bullies laid into a busload of mostly Shiite students protesting against the Iranian-backed Shiite militia’s role in the Syria war.

The man killed by gunfire was identified as Hashim Salman, head of the student section of the Lebanese Intima’ Party  (“حزب الانتماء اللبناني” or “Lebanese Affiliation Party”), led by Ahmad el-Ass’ad whose family has been politically eclipsed within the Shiite community since the mid-1980s.

When the bus carrying the Intima’ group stopped outside the Iranian embassy, Hezbollah bullies, all identifiable by their black T-shirts, yellow armbands and blue jeans, wearing pistols on their belts, attacked the vehicle with batons, smashing its windows.

The two groups scuffled on the street and the Hezbollah men drew their weapons and opened fire, killing Hashim Salman and wounding Muhammad Hassan, Hassan Hassan, Hassan Souli and Ziad Ali.

The Intima’ Party leader told this morning’s edition of the independent Beirut daily an-Nahar, “About a hundred of our supporters, most of them university students, headed to the Iranian embassy to tell Iranians ‘you involved our men in the Syria war, which is something we don’t accept. If you are so keen on fighting this war, send in your Iranian army to fight whoever it wants.’”

Ass’ad said Hezbollah bullies attacked his supporters as soon as their bus approached the Iranian embassy. He said Salman was specifically targeted and shot twice in the abdomen at close range “because Hezbollah knows he is very close to me.”

Ass’ad also charged that after falling to the ground, Salman was left to bleed for about 20 minutes before his assailants allowed moving him to hospital.

Clockwise from L.: Ahmad, Kamel and Ahmad Bey el-Ass'ad

Talking separately to al-Mustaqbal newspaper, the Intima’ leader said Salman’s premeditated “execution” was meant to send him and his party a message.

“The incident,” he said, “proved that Hassan Nasrallah’s problem is not with the Takfiris in Syria, but with the opposite view inside the Shiite community. Hashim was Shiite, so were his father and forefathers. Where is the Takfiri in this? Those were university student protestors…”

The Intima’ party leader’s father and grandfather dominated Shiite politics in Lebanon for nearly 40 years.

Both his father Kamel el-Ass’ad and grandfather Ahmad Bey el-Ass’ad served as Lebanese parliament speaker frequently between 1951 and 1984.

Syria sidelined Kamel el-Ass’ad from Lebanese politics in 1984, when it threw its weight behind the more hardline Shiite groups – namely, the pro-Syrian Amal Movement headed by current House Speaker Nabih Berri and Iran’s cat’s-paw Hezbollah.

Gen. Idriss: The post-Qusayr state of play in Syria

Hezbollah's black flag of "Ya Hussein" on a minaret in al-Qusayr

Aljazeera Mubasher aired the following interview with Gen. Salim Idriss, chief of staff of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, today. The translation is my own:

Gen. Idriss being interviewed

Q. General, brief us if you may about Qusayr and the overall military situation

The battle for Qusayr drew a lot of media attention. It was certainly a major and key battle. Fact is that huge numbers of Hezbollah fighters – we’re talking of more than 7,000 fighters – crossed the Lebanese borders into the town’s outlying areas. It is an open secret that these were elite and well-equipped Hezbollah forces.

They crossed the Lebanese-Syrian border under the nose of the Lebanese army. We have information the Lebanese army watched nonchalantly as they crossed the border. The army did absolutely nothing to stop them. In truth, and to put it diplomatically, this is utter complicity.

The fighters went in and were able, after some fierce fighting, to take control of a number of villages in close proximity to the border.

Throughout the fighting, these (Hezbollah) forces were receiving unprecedented air cover from the criminal regime’s warplanes, which dropped all kinds of bombs and medium-range missiles -- including thermobaric bombs and long-range shells -- against our men and villages.

Mechanized regime forces and Hezbollah fighters then used what is called scorched tactics to pulverize Qusayr, one neighborhood after the other, in order to be able to control it.

The number of injured in Qusayr is very high and humanitarian conditions are tough because the criminal regime’s forces and Hezbollah fighters had been blockading Qusayr town for weeks.

With their light weapons, FSA forces were left with two options: hold out and be wiped out altogether, or retreat along with the wounded, who were many.

We, as FSA, acknowledge that we cannot face up to the regime’s regular army when it is in full-strength. Between brackets, the regime has no army left to fight us with. Its army was over and done with a long time ago.

The best way for us to fight this regime is by guerilla warfare or hit and run tactics without holding on to territory. But in Qusayr, we were forced to defend our people’s security.

Displays and manifestations of sectarianism, confessional hatred and fanaticism started as soon as regime forces and Hezbollah fighters went into Qusayr.

First thing they did was to raise a black flag with the (Shiite) cry “Ya (Oh) Hussein” inscribed on it and chant that they are “the sons of Ali.”

This liar, Hassan Nasrallah, used to claim he is a resistance (movement against Israel), which he considered to be Islamic.

These (Hezbollah) people are unrelated to Islam or to Hussein or to Ali or to Zeinab. After all, Hussein is ours and so is Zeinab.

These people are simply carrying out a dirty Iranian scheme.

God willing, the end of the Hezbollah movement will come here on Syrian land.

Syria has an area of 185,000 square kilometers. Her people, her heroes, her freedom fighters have gulped down the criminal regime’s army and are able to gulp down Hassan Nasrallah’s fighters.

Q. Did you set a new strategy for the coming battles, especially after reports that Hezbollah fighters are now massing in Aleppo, Homs and Rif Dimashq?

Certainly, but this not something we would share with the media.

But the leaders of Hezbollah and Iran know – and so does the criminal Bashar – the high figure of casualties they sustained to enter a small town. Can they keep up the momentum and bear such a high casualty toll?

We are 23 million people spread over an area of 185,000 kilometers. We will all be fighting Hezbollah and the other Iraqi Shiite bigots and Iranian fighters who support the regime. We will fight them to the finish.

We assure them, we are aware this is going to be a tough and long-drawn-out war that could last for years. The Lebanese war lasted 17 years.

The fact Hassan Nasrallah acted on Iran’s orders and joined criminal Bashar in this war opened the door to all probabilities. We are prepared for this confrontation. We are ready for this war.

Through your channel, I appeal to my brothers the combatants, fighters and insurgents to raise their alertness condition to “Maximum Readiness” level in order to confront the ongoing sectarian invasion.

After Bashar pioneered sectarianism, which was unbeknown to us, Hassan Nasrallah comes in to hoist black flags on top of our minarets

This is something we will not forget. We believe in tit for tat. We shall fight them, even if the war were to last a thousand years.

Q. How is the situation now in Qusayr? Are there still civilians there?

I can’t discuss the fate of the civilians and wounded, if only because regime warplanes are still chasing the wounded.

Whenever they are moved from Qusayr to medical facilities inside or outwith Lebanese territory, regime warplanes and Hezbollah fighters track them.

So I apologize for not being able to share with you any information on the state of the civilians, the wounded, the state of Qusayr or the villages near it.

Q. Did fighting flare up in Rif Dimashq because Hezbollah fighters joined the fray en masse?

Hezbollah fighters are now spread across Syria. They have a presence in Eastern Ghouta alongside Iraqi Shiite extremists belonging to the Mahdi Brigade and ‘Asa’eb al-Haq, Iranian combatants and Shiite volunteers from Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Hezbollah fighters also have a presence in Rif Dimashq’s western and northern sectors. They have a tightly packed presence in Aleppo, Idlib and east Syria. We know their numbers, where they are positioned and where their sleeping quarters are.

For example, we know that some 4,000 Hezbollah fighters are accommodated in the Military Academy west of Aleppo. They are bracing for battle on the Khan Al Asal front.

Q. Can you promise the poorly armed FSA members qualitative weapons anytime soon?

Victory comes from God, faith and the cause we are upholding – namely, to uproot this tyrant who destroyed the country, its people and social fabric.

Weapons are vital and much needed. But the determining factor is faith and the fighter’s belief in the justice of his cause.

They’ve been saying they stifled the revolution for two years and they stifled nothing. They now brought in Hezbollah, their last card – unless of course they call on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to intervene directly.

Q. Will the FSA be intervening in Lebanon to fight Hezbollah there?

Frankly, we did not and will not ask our fighters to go into Lebanon.

We don’t want to fight on Lebanese territory.

Lebanon is a country we respect. We know Lebanese authorities can’t lift a finger against Hezbollah. Hezbollah wreaked havoc in Lebanon and destroyed its social fabric. It totally disregards state authority.

We repeatedly urged the Lebanese president to condemn (Hezbollah’s invasion). But we excuse him because he cannot do that. They (Hezbollah) would create all sorts of problems for him.

The (Lebanese) president is an honorable man and we respect him highly.

The (caretaker) Prime Minister (Najib Mikati) however is an accomplice of Hezbollah -- and so is the Lebanese army, whether willingly or unwillingly.

But we will not fight inside Lebanese territory.

Q. Are you coordinating positions with the Syrian National Coalition in respect of the proposed Geneva-2 conference?

Geneva-2 is the brainchild of the Russians and Americans.

The Russians want to exploit it to tell the world the Syrian opposition is divided.

They are hedging their bets on seeing the opposition represented at the conference by four caucuses: (1) The FSA and other fighters (2) The National Coalition (3) Haytham Manna’ and his loyalists (4) The so-called State-Building Bloc created by Assad…

The Russians want them all to meet with Walid al-Muallem so they can later say the opposition is disjointed and there is no solution other than keeping Assad to restore security and stability in Syria and protect its minorities.

The long and short of our position on Geneva-2 is this:

1. One delegation – with one head – goes to the conference to represent the opposition.
2. The delegation would forthwith table its conditions to negotiate a peaceful solution.
3. The conditions are (a) the criminal Bashar al-Assad resigns instantly and leaves the country he destroyed (b) criminal heads of the security services and commanders of the quisling army are referred to trial (c) a transitional government is formed -- one in which the opposition holds sway.
4. From thereon, we will submit to whatever decisions are taken by the Syrian people.

I want to assure the Syrian people the political and armed wings of the opposition are one in wanting the new Syria to be free and democratic, respectful of all religions, free of any sort of discrimination or acts of revenge, where citizens have equal rights and obligations…

 Q. What’s your reading of the days ahead?

The situation is grave, very grave. We forewarn everyone in the world that massacres and many tragedies are in store for Syria.

To date, 60 to 70 percent of Syria is in ruin.

The country might yet be thoroughly destroyed, which is sad but likely.

Others might not be spared. Bashar, Iran and Hezbollah have no qualms about destroying the whole region.

The greatest danger facing the world today is Iran and its quest to revive Khosru’s Sassanid Empire.

Q. And what about the clashes on the Golan front?

All Syrians are familiar with Bashar’s heroics on the Golan front. As Don Quixote incarnated, he never fought or would fight Israel.

He says he will choose the time end place to fight Israel. The time and place will never come.

Bashar and Israel have an undeclared alliance. He is the best neighbor Israel could have. That’s why Israel does not want to see him fall.

Q. Any message you would like to convey to the Syrians?

To all men on all fronts, I would say: Make sure to raise your alertness condition to “Maximum Readiness” level.

To all other Syrians in every city, town, village or rural area, I would say: Take up arms to defend your homeland against a foreign invasion. I ask everyone short of a rifle to sell his clothes and buy one.

Did Obama-Assad reps meet in Barcelona?

Representatives of the Obama Administration and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reportedly held hush-hush talks in Barcelona in late May.

The two sides agreed at the meeting to make common cause against a mutual enemy, terrorism, Nasser Sharara reports exclusively this morning for the Beirut daily al-Akhbar, mouthpiece of the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah triumvirate.

Sharara does not name the two sides’ representatives but says a “high-ranking State Department official” spoke on Washington’s behalf in Barcelona while a “Syrian religious figure” stood for the Damascus government.

Sharara claims the U.S. ambassador to Spain, Alan D. Solomont, was to attend the talks but “was bypassed at the last minute.”

He says, “It transpired from the meeting between the State Department official and the Syrian religious figure that Washington is concerned because Salafist extremists linked to al-Qaeda have infiltrated Syrian opposition ranks and it is imperative to eradicate them.”

Sharara adds, “The impression from the meeting in Barcelona is that Washington is amenable to two ideas: (1) fighting and stifling terror in Syria and (2) hammering out a political solution for Syria in association with Russia.”

Sharara also claims the White House will henceforth shape its Syria policy in partnership with the Pentagon, specifically with Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Derek Chollet.

Ex Hezbollah chief: Syria war coming to Lebanon

Giselle Khoury interviewing Subhi al-Tufayli in Baalbek the day after Qusayr

Former Hezbollah leader Subhi al-Tufayli says Iran has opened the door to an inevitable spillover of the Syria war into Lebanon and provoked 1.3 billion Muslim Sunnis by ordering the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement to help out Bashar al-Assad’s army.

He made the accusation in a 25-minute interview with Giselle Khoury for Alarabiya TV news channel.

The interview took place in Baalbek within 24 hours of the fall of the Syrian town of Qusayr to Syrian government troops backed by Hezbollah fighters. 

Tufayli, who spent nine years studying theology in Najaf was spokesman for Hezbollah between 1985 and 1989, and became the militant Shiite group’s first Secretary-General from 1989 until 1991.

I excerpted and paraphrased from the interview these remarks by Tufayli on the fallout from Hezbollah’s military intervention in Syria:

Lebanon is bound for war – a war worse than any Lebanon has seen to date.

Regrettably -- regrettably again -- the war will be between Sunnis and Shiites who embraced the initiative of invading Syria.

We (Shiites) have alienated Lebanon’s Sunnis, the Free Syrian Army and Sunnis worldwide. We provoked everyone.

When we -- (a reference to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah specifically) – declare openly, “Whoever does not share our view can come and fight us in Syria,” we are effectively provoking the world’s 1.3 billion Muslim Sunnis and not only the Sunnis of Lebanon, Syria and the Arab world.

Time will show that talk of a Hezbollah victory on the home front in the 7 May 2008 conflict in Lebanon is haywire.

At times, certain countries – in this case America – have an interest to see Hezbollah come out on top in a confrontation, such as happened in Beirut on May 7, 2008.

Talk of a Hezbollah victory in Qusayr is also a big lie.

I think Hezbollah suffered its worst defeat in Qusayr.

Qusayr is a small town. It was besieged. Some of its people were very poorly armed. It was blockaded and pounded by all sorts of shells, bombs and missiles from the air and the ground. It held out for a some time. When its defenders ran out of ammunitions, they were able to pull out and leave the town.

What I am saying is that Hezbollah defeated no one. The people in Qusayr held out as long as their weapons permitted. When they had the means to defend themselves, neither Hezbollah nor anyone else could overrun the town.

And I know the high number of fatalities suffered by the attackers of Qusayr, not to speak of the wounded.

The attackers did not go into Qusayr before the defenders completed their withdrawal.

All the boastful statements about changing the Middle East map evaporated at Qusayr’s doorstep. The empty rhetoric reminds me of Gamal Abdel-Nasser bragging about his al-Kaher and al-Zafer missiles.

Nothing is in store for us after Qusayr except catastrophes, especially if the Syrians (fighting Assad) manage to get qualitative weapons.

Let’s wait and see if (Hezbollah) won Hermel peace and stability or brimstone and fire.

Hezbollah was founded as a party to resist Israel, to defend and uphold the Ummah (Muslims throughout the world).

All this melted away in Qusayr.  Even the rank and file members of Hezbollah know we are no more a resistance party, a party to resist Israelis. We’ve been turned into a party to fight Muslims whether in Beirut or Qusayr, and now Damascus and then Homs.

Can you imagine Hezbollah joining a sectarian war?

The foolish step by Iran, ordering Hezbollah to intervene militarily in Syria, laid the ground for a chapter of killings, wars, bloodshed, harming children and women and desecrating the Ummah.

Is it a case of self-defense when Hezbollah attacks women and children in Qusayr?

States always boss the sides they finance. Iran vis-à-vis Hezbollah is no exception.

Blame the fire that will unquestionably scorch Lebanon on Iran and Iran only.

Obama must act decisively on Syria – McCain

On the heels of his trip to Syria and stops in Jordan, Turkey and Yemen, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday delivered this address at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. on “U.S. policy in Syria and the broader Middle East”:

Senator John McCain at Brookings yesterday

Thank you, Martin (Indyk), for that kind introduction.  

It is always a pleasure to return to the Brookings Institution, this bastion of conservative thought. It is nice to see so many friends, as well as a few enemies, in the audience this afternoon. I would like to make a few opening remarks, and then I’d be happy to respond to any comments, or questions, or insults you may have.

As most of you know, I traveled last week to Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, and Syria. This was my twelfth separate trip to the region since the events known as the Arab Spring began in December 2011. And what I can say categorically today is that I am now more concerned than at any time since the darkest days of the war in Iraq that the Middle East is descending into sectarian conflict.  

The conflict in Syria is at the heart of this crisis. Last week, together with General Salim Idriss, the chief of staff of the Supreme Military Council, I met with more than a dozen senior Free Syrian Army commanders in southern Turkey and northern Syria. They came from cities across Syria, including Qusayr, Homs, Damascus, and Aleppo. Many of them were joined by their civilian counterparts. And all of them painted the same grave picture of the state of the conflict in Syria.

Assad has turned the tide of battle on the ground. His foreign allies have all doubled down on him. Iran is all in. Russia is all in. Shiite militants are flowing into the fight from Iraq. And Hezbollah fighters have invaded Syria by the thousands. They were decisive in retaking the critical city of Qusayr, and now they are leading the attacks on Homs and Aleppo. Assad is using every weapon in his arsenal, from tanks and artillery, to air power and ballistic missiles. And according to a recent U.N. report, there are, quote, “reasonable grounds” to believe that Assad’s forces have used chemical weapons. The President’s red-line appears to have been crossed, perhaps more than once, and it should come as no surprise that new claims of chemical weapons use by Assad are already surfacing, as I heard in Syria.

The result of this onslaught is that Syria as we know it is ceasing to exist. More than 80,000 people are dead. A quarter of all Syrians have been driven from their homes. The Syrian state is disintegrating in much of the country, leaving vast ungoverned spaces that are being filled by extremists, many aligned with al-Qaeda. Some now put the number of these extremists inside Syria in the thousands. They are the best armed, best funded, and most experienced fighters. And every day this conflict grinds on, these extremists are marginalizing moderate leaders like the commanders I met last week – Syrians who don’t want to trade Assad for al-Nusra.

The worsening conflict in Syria is now spilling outside of the country and stoking sectarian conflict across the region. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are each straining under the weight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. Indeed, ten percent of Jordan’s population is now Syrian refugees. This would be equivalent to the entire population of Texas suddenly crossing our own border. And that number is expected to double this year. Terrorist bombings have struck Turkey, and Syrian groups are firing rockets into Shiite areas of Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria. Old sectarian wounds are being reopened in Lebanon.

The situation is even worse in Iraq. The conflict in Syria, together with Prime Minister Maliki’s unwillingness to share power, is radicalizing Iraq’s Sunni population. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is back and stepping up its attacks on Iraqi Shiites. In response, Shiite militias are remobilizing and retaliating against Iraqi Sunnis. More than 1,000 Iraqis were killed last month alone, the highest level of violence since 2007. Some experts now believe that one watershed event, similar to the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006, could tip Iraq back into full-scale sectarian conflict.

Extremist forces are also gathering momentum elsewhere in the region. The fall of governments across the region has opened up ungoverned spaces that now stretch from the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa, across North Africa, all the way down into Mali and even northern Nigeria. Al-Qaeda affiliated extremist groups are now on the march throughout these vast ungoverned spaces. Iran is also seeking to exploit the present chaos. Indeed, every Yemeni and U.S. official I met last week in Sana’a said that Iran is a greater threat in Yemen today than Al-Qaeda.

Put simply, the space for moderate politics is collapsing as the Middle East descends deeper into extremism and conflict. A sectarian battle-line is being drawn through the heart of the region – with Sunni extremists, many allied with al-Qaeda, dominant on one side, and Iranian-backed proxy forces dominant on the other.  

What is more disturbing, however, is how little most Americans seem to care. Most are weary of war and eager to focus on domestic issues. But some hold a more cynical view: They see the Middle East as a hopeless quagmire of ancient hatreds and a huge distraction from worthier priorities, whether it is rebalancing toward Asia or nation-building at home. For those of us who believe otherwise, and who believe the United States must lead more actively in the region, we have to answer a fundamental question: Why should we care about the Middle East?

One reason is that we have enduring national interests in the Middle East that will not be diminished – not by our fatigue with the region and its challenges, not by our desire to focus on domestic issues, not by the growing importance of other parts of the world, and not even by the prospect of American energy independence. The Middle East has always been more important than oil. It still is.  

The United States has friends and allies in the Middle East who depend on us for their security, and who contribute more to the defense and well-being of our nation than most Americans will ever know. But believe me, Americans will know it very quickly if global trade and energy flows, not to mention U.S. warships, can no longer transit the Suez Canal, through which approximately 8 percent of the world’s seaborne trade passes. They will know it if we lose key Arab partners, such as the Kingdom of Jordan, along with their vital military, intelligence, and counterterrorism cooperation. And they will absolutely know it if Israel becomes beset on all sides by even more hostile governments and more violent extremists.

In short, if the Middle East descends into extremism, and war, and despair, no one should think America would be able to pivot away from those threats. Our national security interests will suffer. That is an inescapable reality. It is the lesson of September 11, 2001. And to believe otherwise is not only naïve; it is dangerous.  

The Middle East also matters because much of the rest of the world views it, rightly, as a test of American credibility and resolve. For decades, Presidents of both parties have said the United States will deter our enemies and support our friends in the Middle East. They have said we would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapons capability. And they have said, as this President has said about Syria, that we would not tolerate the use or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If the United States now signals that it is unwilling or unable to meet its own stated commitments and enforce its own declared red-lines, that message will be heard loud and clear, far beyond the Middle East. It will demoralize our friends, embolden our enemies, and make our world a far more dangerous place for us.

But ultimately, there is a more positive reason why we have to care about the Middle East. This region is now experiencing a period of upheaval unlike any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Over the past three years, we have seen millions and millions of ordinary men and women rise up peacefully, and lift their voices, and risk everything on behalf of the same values we hold dear: freedom and democracy, equal justice and rule of law, human rights and dignity. They are doing so against impossible odds and, at times, in the face of merciless oppression and violence. These brave men and women are taking a chance on themselves, many for the first time. And they are asking us to take a chance on them – not after they have succeeded in their struggles, but now, when they need it most, when their fate hangs in the balance, and when American leadership can still be decisive.

I know some of our initial hopes for the Arab Spring have dimmed quite a bit – in part because of a lack of U.S. leadership.  But these hopes have not gone out. And so long as men and women across the Middle East still harbor hopes for a future of peace, and freedom, and prosperity, the Arab Spring will remain the greatest repudiation of everything that al-Qaeda stands for. Ultimately, this is how our long fight against global terrorist groups will be won. This is how conditions of lasting peace will finally be secured across the Middle East. Not through drone strikes and night raids alone, but by helping people across the region lift up democratic governments and growing economies that offer hope.

The entire Middle East is now up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning. Moderate forces and aspiring democrats are fighting for their futures and their very lives. The only power that is not fully committed in this struggle is us. And as a result, leaders and people across the region who share our interests and many of our values are losing ground to violent extremists.  

Our friends and allies in the Middle East are crying out for American leadership, as I heard again last week. We must answer this call. We must lead. We need an alternative strategy that creates space for moderate leaders to marginalize extremists and for people to resolve their differences peacefully, politically.  

An alternative strategy must begin with a credible Syria policy. I want a negotiated end to this conflict. But anyone who thinks that Assad and his allies will ever make peace when they are winning on the battlefield is delusional. I know that the situation in Syria is hugely complicated, and that there are no easy or ideal options. But we have to be realistic: This conflict will grind on with all of its worsening consequences until the balance of power shifts against Assad and his allies. And the longer we wait to take action, the more action we will have to take.

No one should think that we have to destroy every air defense system or put thousands of boots on the ground to make a difference in Syria. We have limited options. We could use our stand-off weapons, such as cruise missiles, to target Assad’s aircraft and ballistic missile launchers on the ground. We could enable a provisional government to establish itself in a safe zone in Syria that we could help to protect with Patriot missiles. And we could organize a full-scale operation to train and equip Syrian opposition forces. After all, Assad is getting weapons. Al-Nusra is getting weapons. The only forces in Syria that are not getting weapons are moderate commanders like those I met last week, who said their units desperately need ammunition and weapons to counter Assad’s tanks, artillery, and air power.

Would any of this immediately end the conflict? Probably not. But could it save innocent lives in Syria? Could it give the moderate opposition a better chance to succeed? And could it help to turn the conflict in Syria into a strategic disaster for Iran and Hezbollah? To me, the answer to all of these questions is yes.  

More decisive action in Syria could create new leverage to defuse sectarian tensions and counter Iran’s ambition of regional hegemony. In the Gulf, this would mean making the military threat more credible and apparent as Iran continues its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. And in Lebanon, this would mean making the strategic defeat of Hezbollah in Syria the centerpiece of a wider campaign to target its finances, cut its supply lines, delegitimize its leaders, and support internal opposition to its role as an armed force in Lebanese politics.  

An alternative Middle East strategy must also include a greatly enhanced effort to build the capacity of security forces across the region, especially in North African. Egypt needs a new police force. Tunisia needs help with border security. Libya is trying to build new national security forces from scratch. Mali basically needs a whole new army. One bright spot is actually Yemen, which is engaged in a promising restructuring of its armed forces and internal security units. These governments, and others like them, don’t want al-Qaeda affiliates exploiting their countries any more than we do. They have a lot of will to resist these groups. They just need help with the means. The U.S. military can play this role better than any force in the world. And it is in our interest to do so far more than we are currently.

More broadly, we must renew our leadership on behalf of human rights and democracy in the Middle East. This will take different forms in different countries. In Yemen, for example, where a managed transition is proving more successful thus far than many could have expected, we must continue to provide assistance as requested. In Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf states, we must shore up the stability of these vital partners while also urging them to continue responding to their peoples’ desires for change, including through greater political reform.  

And then there is Egypt, where the high hopes that many of us, and many Egyptians, had back in January 2011 are being deeply disappointed. I am a friend of Egypt and a long-standing supporter of our assistance relationship. But after this week’s conviction of 43 NGO workers, Congress must reevaluate our assistance to Egypt. Our foreign aid budget is shrinking while the demands on it are growing. As a result, Egypt must show that it is a good investment of our scarce resources – that the return on this investment will be a freer, more democratic, more tolerant Egypt. If not, Congress will spend this money elsewhere. That is just a fact.

At the same time, we must make it clear that the United States does not align itself with any one ruler or group in Egypt. Rather, we stand for the principles and practices of democracy, for the freedoms of civil society, and for the basic rights of all Egyptians. We must not simply exchange a Mubarak policy for a Morsi policy. We need to have, at long last, an Egypt policy.  

Finally, any strategy to bolster moderates in the Middle East must include an effort to seek peace between Palestinians and Israelis. As always, such an effort must be weighed against its opportunity costs. With so many urgent priorities now demanding high-level attention in the region, especially Syria, I hope the President and his new national security team are carefully considering these trade-offs.

Each of the steps I have described today is necessary if we are to have a more effective strategy to advance our interests and values in the Middle East. But none of these steps will be sufficient without one additional factor: the sustained, outspoken, and determined leadership of the President of the United States.

Only the President can explain to the American people how high the stakes are in the Middle East. Only the President can change public opinion and rally the American people behind him. Only the President can push our government to be bolder, and more imaginative, and more decisive than it is inclined to be. Only the President can pull our friends and allies together and shape their individual efforts into decisive, unified international action. Only the President can do these things. And that is what we need from him now more than ever. We need him to lead.

That is also what our friends and allies in the Middle East want from our President. They want him to lead, and they want America to lead. That is what I heard last week in Jordan. That is what I heard in Yemen. That is what I heard in Turkey. And that is absolutely what I heard in Syria. That is what people and leaders tell me again and again as I travel throughout the region. They tell me they want America to lead because they are confident that America can still be decisive in shaping the future of the Middle East. In short, our friends and allies still believe in America. What they want to know is whether we still believe in ourselves.

Renewing American leadership in the Middle East should be a Republican goal. It should be a Democratic goal. And if the President makes it his goal, he will have my full support.