Understanding the Obama Administration’s Syria Policy

Abstract

President Obama’s Syria policy and his decision not to intervene in Syria had long been criticized by the US political elites, scholars, and pundits. Most of the explanations of the US policy towards the Syrian civil war are based on realpolitik arguments. Realpolitik explanations of foreign policy analysis tend to overlook other key factors that play a vital role in foreign policy decision making processes. Therefore, these studies fail to explain Obama’s Syria policy adequately. This article aims to provide a more comprehensive explanation of Obama’s Syria policy. I argue that Obama’s Syria policy can be better explained by two other approaches: mass politics and psychological and cognitive approaches. After a thorough examination of relevant literature and President Obama’s interviews and speeches, I argue that President Obama chose not to intervene in Syria because US public opinion was extremely reluctant to send US troops to Syria, and there was not an effective interest group that could impact the public opinion and the administration’s policies. Further, President Obama’s beliefs and attitudes also played a vital role in determining his Syria policy. First, Obama’s fundamental beliefs shaped how he approached the Syrian crisis. Then, his interaction with several actors and crises affected his attitude towards Syria and how the situation should be handled. His speeches and interviews show that Libyan intervention affected his perceptions. Therefore, he did not implement the same option in the Syrian case. Likewise, Obama’s categorization of the Middle East leaders and threats affected his Syria policy. Last but not least, diplomatic encounters and his personal experience also played a role in determining his Syria policy.