Obama Administration Should Stop Conflating Syria and Iran

National security adviser Susan Rice appeared to be channeling her namesake and Republican predecessor Condoleezza on Monday [Sept. 9], when she insisted that if the United States failed to strike Syria for its apparent use of chemical weapons “more of the world’s most dangerous weapons” could wind up in “the world’s most dangerous hands.”

Iran and North Korea, Rice claimed, “will be emboldened to push harder for the world they want,” if the United States does not act. “We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Rice told an audience at the New American Foundation in Washington. “For our efforts to succeed, the leaders in Tehran must know the United States means what it says.”

Rice’s comments echo those of President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and others in the administration who have based their public justification for striking Syria on a Chinese menu of rationales that includes impressing Iran. But the Iran argument — while understandable in domestic US political terms — is both flawed and risky, conflating a more narrowly supported goal of responding to and deterring the use of chemical weapons with the much broader-based international aim of preventing Iran from developing nuclear bombs.

By insisting that Iran will be “emboldened” to pursue nuclear weapons in the absence of military action against Syria, US officials risk making themselves look weak in upcoming nuclear negotiations if the US Congress and much of the world balk at endorsing US strikes against Syria. Setting up a Syrian straw man also detracts from the US administration’s success over the past five years in building an international coalition on Iran that includes unprecedented economic sanctions.

As he did when he drew a “red line” against large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria a year ago, Obama has put himself in a box of his own making in regard to the Syria-Iran nexus. While it's true that the two governments have a long-standing alliance, it is vital to distinguish between the two situations and make sure that a possible US failure to obtain strong congressional and international authorization for hitting Syria does not reduce US flexibility in upcoming nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The election of a pragmatic new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, and Iran’s decision to put responsibility for nuclear negotiations under a veteran diplomat and English speaker, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, presents the best opportunity in years for progress on a nuclear deal. At the same time, international leverage with Iran is at a peak as a result of US-led sanctions that have severely impacted the Iranian economy. Without sanctions relief, Rouhani will not be able to fulfill his promises to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians.

While it may be understandable that US officials would link Syria and Iran in an effort to strengthen their case on Syria, they should be able to construct policies tailored to the particulars of each situation.

Regarding Syria, the administration says it has “high confidence” that the Bashar al-Assad regime used chemical weapons on Aug. 21 that killed more than a thousand Syrian civilians and that Assad used such weapons previously on a smaller scale on a dozen occasions. Rice was most effective on Monday when she described the gruesome consequences of sarin gas on children. As a parent and a mother, she said, she could not look at the videos of Syrian children “their eyes glassy, their bodies twitching and not think of my own two kids.” She also argued effectively that chemical weapons could proliferate in the chaos of the Syrian civil war and ultimately threaten US allies in the region, American troops stationed abroad and even the US homeland if such munitions fell into the hands of terrorists.

However, Rice left without answering any questions from assembled reporters about whether there are non-military means of securing these weapons stockpiles and deterring their further use. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday suggested that Syria could put its chemical weapons under international supervision prior to destroying them as a way to stave off US strikes.

Even as Rice listed a handful of other countries that have signed onto a US statement calling for “a strong international response” — but not necessarily military action — against Syria, the numbers backing Washington remain small (only about two dozen) and only a handful say they would participate. Meanwhile, US public opinion polls show that fewer Americans support military action against Syria now than before the administration began its full-court public relations campaign. According to a poll released Monday by the Pew research center and USA Today, 63% of Americans oppose military action and only 28% are in favor, compared to 48% opposed and 29% in favor a week ago. It remains unclear whether President Obama can change those numbers appreciably when he addresses the nation on Tuesday night [Sept. 10].

The reason the United States is having so much trouble attracting domestic and international buy-in for military action is that US officials have failed so far to explain how “targeted, consequential and limited” strikes — in the words of deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough — will deter Assad from using such weapons again.

If the strikes are more substantial, they risk strengthening elements of the Syrian opposition that are linked to al-Qaeda, as congressional skeptics noted during hearings last week. There is also the possibility of Syrian retaliation against Jordan or Turkey, as Syrian officials have threatened.

The Obama administration has also failed to lay out a clear diplomatic strategy that could bring the Syrian opposition, Assad and the various foreign powers that have intervened in the conflict into negotiations on a cease-fire after US military action. Samantha Powers, the US ambassador to the United Nations and a powerful advocate of using US force to protect civilians, conceded in a speech in Washington on Sept. 6 that “there is no risk-free door number two we can choose” to resolve the Syrian conflict.

Whatever the administration decides to do, the Syrian war is likely to grind on for many months if not years, burdening neighboring states with refugees and deepening sectarian tensions.

US efforts to contain the conflict would be helped by re-invigorated diplomacy with Iran on both Syria and the nuclear issue. A nuclear deal would reduce regional tensions, including the possibility that Israel might be tempted to strike Iran, and could provide benefits not just in regard to Syria but on the Israeli-Palestinian front and the Sunni-Shiite divide. Such a deal should not be held hostage to the outcome of the current debate on whether the United States takes military action against Syria.