Posted on 01/28/2006 7:43:00 PM PST by jmc1969
Senior source in Damascus tells Ynet Syrian leader Assad interested in deal that would allow him to stay in power; the price: Incriminating senior officials behind Hariri killing, cutting aid to anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq. Assad still refusing to dismantle Hizbullah
Syria's Assad wants a deal: Syrian President Bashar Assad is engaged in advanced contacts with the U.S. and France in a bid to work out an agreement that will allow him to stay in power, a senior source in Damascus told Ynet.
According to the source, the contacts are being undertaken through Saudi intermediation and are meant to resolve the international crisis currently faced by the Syrian leadership.
The deal being worked out is reportedly based on the following understandings: Two senior Syria officials, General Rustom Ghazaleh and one of his assistants, Jameh Jameh, will be incriminated in connection with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Meanwhile, Assad himself and particularly his brother-in-law, Asef Shawkat, will be cleared of involvement in the killing.
Moreover, the Syrians are expected to end their support for anti-American elements operating in Iraq and pledge to tighten border controls and act to end arms transfers into Iraq.
The Syrians will also pledge to minimize their cooperation with Iran, which is funding and directing many of the groups fighting American troops. Notably, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Damascus a week ago.
The Iranian-Syrian connection is raising concern in the West, particularly in light of reports that the Iranian leader was accompanied in the visit by arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, one of the world's most wanted terror figures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
yup, toss that in, and you've got a deal!
So what?
Even if Assad came out and said he ordered Hariri's death it means nothing. The US still wouldn't be able to institute regime change against Syria because we don't have the troops and the worst possible situation is if we simply took out Assad and left Syria a destabilized mess.
That is the whole point. The dead man is dead. It is done. Syrian influence is NOT diminished in Lebanon. Time is on their side.
Exactly, Syria is simply an annoyance, we have bigger fish to fry, but we can't do everything at once.
Annoyance my ass....
L
Good point.
Iran is the main concern.
I didn't know Bashar al-Assad was in power in 1983.
Assad is an asshole, but he isn't the one that will very soon have a nuke and wants to turn his country into a great suicide bomber that will wipe out the Middle East.
Compared to the rappidly building threat of Iran, Assad is a whimpy loser.
I agree with your post that Iran is the bigger concern, but I believe that the Bush admin. has the bigger chess match in site. If the pawns are eliminated, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Lybia, etc. Then that leaves the Irans, et. al. more vulnerable. I would like to see how this announcement plays out. More info will be helpful. IMO
Time to tell Assad to E.S.A.D!
No "Deals" with Islamazi terrorists and thugs!
Make your deals with Allah, because you have NO credibility here!
Crushing Syria has the added bonus of taking a lot of pressure of Lebanon. It would also allow our guys to get into the Bekka Valley and locate the WMDs that are stored there. Another benefit is that the Syrian jihadis won't be able to slip across the border and murder American GIs.
I say we take the 'low hanging fruit', and knock off Syria before Iran.
L
While you're at it, George, make Assad hand over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Great 'deal'; Syria promises us they're not going to help kill as many American troops as before. wow
It's a deal only Jimmah Carter and John Kerry could love.
How about the eye doctor leaves Syria and he won't be killed?
Any deal should come with ASsad producing all of Husseins WMDs.
The correct take, in my opinion.
If there is anything whatsoever to this rumor, it is Assad signaling that he would accept a deal, any deal, to stay in power.
That is not a deal he is going to get from the Bush administration, however. There are simply too many loose ends -- support for Iraq insurgency, Hizbollah and Israeli security, Lebanon and Assad's guilt, not to mention Saddam's WMD.
Given success in Iraq and Lebanon, why would we agree to leave the Assad regime in place?
The Rovian answer is we didn't forget but want to wait till a little closer to the election to knock the legs out from under the "Bush Lied" crowd.
And Jay Rockefeller's dealings with Damascus will remain classified until the year 3000?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.