Mad deal over Syria: the week America lost its leadership role

Looking back on the 21st century, historians may view the second week of September 2013 as the beginning of the end of the United States as a super power; or at the very least as the week Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin and the Russian President became the leader of the Western World.

The week began with President Obama, already looking weak throughout the Syrian crisis, trying to sell his Syria war to Congress and the American people via appearances on the Sunday news shows by his Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough. His argument was that a U.S. attack on Syria would send a message to Iranian leaders that they should not feel free to develop nuclear weapons and that “to communicate with them we have to be very clear, very forthright. This is an opportunity to be both with the Iranians…”

The Iranians did not need any more messages from President Obama; their mailbox is full of messages documenting that he’s a weak president without the resolve to protect the American people. Five years of appeasement is a strong message.

Allowing terrorists to get away with killing four Americans in Benghazi a year ago sent a message to Iran. On again, off again talks, while Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, and stopping an Israeli attack on the Iranian Nukes because it was an American election year, also delivered a message of impotence to the Iranians.

Even liberal pundits saw the Iran argument as a move of desperation, with the American people rejecting his war cries while his weak support in Congress (even in the Democratic party controlled Senate) was getting weaker.

Monday was an absolute comedy of errors for the Administration. While trying to gather international approval for attacking Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and made an offhanded remark about avoiding military action if Syria gives up its chemical weapons to some sort of international force. The President had already said a negotiated settlement wasn’t possible and that getting rid of Assad would not be the objective of any Syrian war, but also stated that Assad had to go. If Syria agreed to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, that would recognize Assad as the leader of Syria.

Kerry promised that any move against Assad would be an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort,” which elicited “why bother” from war hawks and ridicule around the world.

After Kerry’s accidental proposal, the State Department tried to retract the offer, saying it was hypothetical. Too late. Putin saw the opportunity to save his Syrian allies and out maneuver the Americans again. The Russians took Kerry’s offer to Syria; they immediately expressed interest.

Later that same day, the former Secretary of State who, by all indications, wants to be the next President, was in Washington to pick up a liberty award. The award was to be given on 9/11, which along with the horrors of 2001 was the anniversary of last year’s Benghazi terrorist attack.

The United States never punished those who killed our ambassador and three others in Benghazi (the killers had been identified), but we were going after Assad.

Ms. Clinton had lunch with the President and spoke to the press. Surprisingly, Clinton came out in favor of the Russian deal though Kerry and the White House were still trashing the offer they didn’t want to make, to avoid the war nobody wanted.

Finally, the President sat down with the news anchors of six networks (he omitted Univision as he no longer needs the Latino vote) and announced that his government would pursue the diplomatic effort his administration had been spending most of the day trashing. Not only that but — surprise! — he’d discussed the idea with Putin at the G20 Summit the previous week!

Then, rather than cancel his nationwide address scheduled for the next evening, President Obama delivered a very strange speech. It tried to convince the people of the urgent need to strike Syriaand then told Congress to delay the vote, which he would have lost anyway.

Radio host Hugh Hewitt said that the speech reminded him of Neville Chamberlain; Middle East scholar Barry Rubin was also reminded of the British prime minister who appeased Hitler.

The next morning, Bibi Netanyahu reiterated his belief that Israel could not rely on the leadership of the U.S. for protection.

“Today, the rule that has guided me in most of my actions as Prime Minister and which I adhere to very carefully, is perhaps more valid than ever: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us? We are for us. And the practical translation of this rule is that Israel will always be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.”

And as John Kerry flew out to negotiate the Syrian deal with the Russians, Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed in the NY Times, the bible of progressivism, scolding Obama’s red line and threats of war against Syria.

That was Putin’s message to Obama that he was taking over the leadership of the Western World. Putin becomes the peacemaker by negotiating with the United States and Assad. Russia will now be a required member of any negotiation, something that has not been the case since the break up of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. Putin might just have won himself a Nobel Peace Prize, the first time in history that a Peace Prize winner has stopped a previous Peace Prize winner from starting a war.

Beyond the return of Russia to prominence, Putin got everything else he wanted. With the agreement (finalized on Yom Kippur) the United States is granting legitimacy to the existing Syrian government which President Obama had said must be deposed. Putin gets to keep both his Assad-led government and Russian Air Force bases on Syrian territory. And in the end Assad may still be controlling his WMD.

By the end of the week one thing was clear. President Obama got his wish. The United States now leads from behind … behind Putin and the Russians.