With the Arab League meeting on Sunday evening for a second time to discuss responses to the Syrian crisis, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, broke the kingdom’s public silence on the subject at a news conference in Cairo on Sunday afternoon, urging other Arab nations to back the Syrian rebels with military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad after a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds.

Saudi Arabia, its Gulf allies and Jordan have all pushed hard behind the scenes for Washington to lead strikes against Mr. Assad, whom they consider the most important regional ally of their greatest enemy, Iran. That pressure continued on Sunday, but until now the monarchies have refrained from publicly endorsing Western military action, presumably because the idea of Western intervention is overwhelmingly unpopular across the Arab world.

Several analysts said Sunday that President Obama had badly damaged American credibility in the Arab world by appearing to back down from airstrikes just hours before many Arab government expected them to begin.

“He is seen as feckless and weak, and this will give further rise to conspiracy theories that Obama doesn’t really want Assad out and it is all a big game,” said Salman Shaikh of the Brookings Doha Center. “Many Arab leaders already think that Obama’s word cannot be trusted — I am talking about his friends and allies — and I am afraid this will reinforce that belief.”

But along with a call to the Syrian rebels, Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday called the Saudi foreign minister. And with the prospect of a debate in the United States Congress looming, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states appear to have concluded they need to exert themselves further to provide regional Arab cover for a Western airstrike.

At an Arab League meeting last week, Saudi Arabia and its allies signed on to a more noncommittal statement holding Mr. Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons but stopping short of endorsing any specific action in response; the resolution merely urged the United Nations Security Council to overcome its internal differences on Syria — an outcome that was extremely unlikely, given Russia’s strong support of Mr. Assad.

The Saudi foreign minister’s statement on Sunday, however, indicated that the Gulf countries were determined to push for stronger public support from the Arab world, even at the cost of angering their citizens and overcoming resistance from others in the region.

Egypt, once among Washington’s most reliable allies in the region, has led the opposition to any resolution supporting Western strikes, initially even refusing to blame the Assad government for the chemical weapons attack.

The new Egyptian government, installed by Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi after he ousted an elected president from the Muslim Brotherhood, has indicated that it fears the Islamist-dominated Syrian rebels more than it does the Assad government or its alliance with Iran. But the new Egyptian government is also beholden to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states for billions of dollars in critically-needed financial support.

Egyptian state news media indicated on Sunday that its government was prepared to accept a Saudi-backed resolution endorsing military action against Syria, with the compromise that the resolution also call for a “political solution” between the Assad government and the rebels. Last week, Egypt was also reluctant when it signed on to the weaker Saudi-backed resolution blaming the Assad government for the chemical weapons attack.

Saudi newspapers, meanwhile, covered Mr. Obama’s speech referring the military action to Congress as if the president were only redoubling his determination to strike Syria. “The most recent calamity changed matters from semi-silence to action,” the Saudi newspaper Al Riyahd declared. “America is the one that chooses any measures without taking permission from the Congress or the Security Council if it has reasons to support actions.” 

Source:The New York Times