Harvard–Belfer on Syria

After OPEC's announcement last week that it would not be cutting production, oil prices fell dramatically. Given the significant global oversupply due to the U.S. shale oil boom and decreased demand in China and Europe, this decision marks an historical moment in which OPEC relinquishes its supply-based approach to price manipulation and embraces a market-based approach. Wisely, the organization has shown that it is aware it can no longer dictate oil prices by attempting to control the market.

As the leader of OPEC, Saudi Arabia is the engineer of this new approach. Indeed, at the OPEC summit the kingdom blocked calls from OPEC and non-OPEC producers, such as Russia, Venezuela, Mexico and Iran, who were urging production cuts in the hopes of raising prices in order to stabilize their oil revenues. It is important to understand why Saudi Arabia is so staunchly advocating this new market-based approach.

"One of the surprising aspects of following U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East from within the United States, as I have done for several months now on an extended visit, is the peculiar gap between ordinary citizens’ sentiments and the fact that the United States is actively militarily engaged in several countries in the region. This dangerous trend means that the American president — it does not matter which party he is from, because they both act similarly irresponsibly abroad — can continue to use the country’s enormous capabilities to wage war around the world at will."

"ISIS cannot be defeated with airstrikes, and that's all the West seems prepared to do. The coalition needs local and regional support. It must be prepared to send in large numbers of ground forces for a long time. Only Iran will be both able and willing to do that."

It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration continues to wrestle with its approach to Syria. There are no good options in a war that has claimed 200,000 lives and displaced nearly 10 million people. The president is right to say that there are no magic solutions, yet he also clearly understands that avoidance is not an alternative if we are to achieve his declared objective of degrading and eventually destroying the Islamic State. Leaving the terrorist group with a haven in Syria ensures it both an ability to wreak havoc in Iraq and an operational space from which to plan, recruit and, in time, carry out attacks worldwide.

It is far too early to count out President Obama as a foreign policy lame duck.

During last week's successful Asia trip, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced an important Climate Change agreement along with technology, visa and military transparency deals. This is a welcome sign that the US and China are capable of taking on tough challenges together.

But, there are other international obstacles ahead for Obama. Can he face down Vladimir Putin on Ukraine and find a way to reach a deal with Iran to block its nuclear ambitions?

Are we witnessing an Obama revival on foreign policy?

Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, met with senior Iraqi officials in Baghdad where he notably left the door open for deploying additional US troops in an effort to defeat ISIL that, he claimed, will likely take years.

Before ISIL can be defeated, it must be contained and the ideological divide during the Cold War serves as a useful starting point for conceiving a containment strategy against ISIL.

In an address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, President Barack Obama called on the world to join in the effort to degrade and destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to “dismantle this network of death.” Samantha Power, U.S. permanent representative to the UN and Belfer Center alumna, said at the UN on August 15, 2014, "The growth of...ISIL, al-Nusrah Front, and other associates of al-Qaeda respresents a grave threat to the people of Syria and the people of Iraq, as well as to the region ad the larger international community."

We asked Belfer Center international security experts to weigh in on this strategic challenge: As ISIL continues to expand its reach and brutality, what must be done in the next year--by neighboring states, the U.S., or others--to degrade and destroy this group?

In this installment of “Inside the Middle East: Q&A,” Ambassador Robert Ford, former United States Ambassador to Syria from 2011 to 2014 and Algeria from 2006 to 2008, discusses his experiences with the State Department in Iraq and Syria, US strategy in the Syrian Civil War, and Syria's future.

President Obama’s strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS has become the target of heated criticism, not only from partisan opponents but from many of his supporters as well. Categorically ruling out American boots on the ground, while subcontracting the bloody job of house-to-house fighting to the Iraqi military, Free Syrian Army, and Kurdish Peshmerga, can only assure failure, critics argue.

These assessments fall into a familiar trap: assuming that what has been announced is the sum of the matter. Especially for admirers of the diplomatic sleights of hand practiced by Henry Kissinger or Jim Baker, neglecting the obvious when assessing the current strategy is unfair.

A video of the panel discussion on ISIS, hosted by the Islamic Legal Studies Program at Harvard Law School, on October 23, 2014. NPR International Correspondent Deborah Amos and HLS Professor Noah Feldman discussed the extremist group's rapid rise, unique characteristics, and ideological and logistical background in a panel moderated by ILSP Co-Director and HLS Professor Kristen Stilt.