Posted on 03/12/2013 5:37:25 AM PDT by SJackson
Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad is the first Arab leader not to succumb to the Arab revolution that has brought down the (dictators) leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Assad has withstood his Sunni-Arab opposition for two years now, albeit with reduced control over the country. That in itself signifies a meaningful victory for the Assad regime and the axis of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah, as well as Russia. The big losers are the U.S., the Arab Gulf states (particularly Qatar and Saudi Arabia), Turkey, and Israel.
It is apparent that the Syrian opposition has been unable to defeat and expel the Assad regime, and it would be futile to predict when and if that will occur. In a defiant interview with London’s Sunday Times (March 3, 2013), Bashar Assad declared he is willing to negotiate with the opposition but would not step down. He added that he would only talk with rebels who laid down their arms, making a distinction between the “political entities” he would engage with and “armed terrorists.”
Assad seemed determined to continue ruling over his torn country, where over 70,000 of his fellow countrymen have been killed, largely by his own regime. He did not seem to be apologetic, nor did he indicate his willingness to compromise. As far as he was concerned, “outsiders” are at work seeking to break up Syria, the cradle of Arab nationalism, and he, as Syria’s leader, will not allow it.
According to Abdelbari Atwan, writing for the Arabs Today website (February 14, 2013) Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, head of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), and Assad’s personal representative, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, will both be visiting Moscow in late February or early March 2013. The question Atwan asked was “will they meet?” The actual announcement of the visit to Moscow by both Muallem and al-Khatib was made by Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov.
The opposition leaders admit that they are unable to capture Damascus, take over central Aleppo, or get ahold of Assad’s chemical weapon depots. Nor has the rebel Free Syrian Army been able to take control of the large Syrian air bases. This is the ostensible reason for the Syrian opposition’s willingness to confer with the Russians and most likely with Muallem. The talks in Moscow, should they come to fruition, will center on the proposal for a cease fire and Assad’s promise to hold elections when his term of office ends next year. Until then, the opposition must acknowledge Bashar Assad as Syria’s president and Commander-in-Chief of Syria’s armed forces.
The opposition appears to be embittered by what it considers Western betrayal: American and Western failure to provide weapons to the rebels or commit to military intervention as the West did in Libya. This is apparently why al-Khatib is willing to turn to Russia. Atwan explained it thus: “It’s clear that both [Assad] regime and opposition camps have arrived at some kind of conviction that the current stalemate rules out a decisive military result, which means looking at other solutions. Moscow might be the best, or at least the most preferred camp for this.”
This brings us to the second victor in the Syrian conflict, President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Putin sought to prevent the U.S. and its NATO allies from toppling Assad, and at the moment he has succeeded. Iran too, is a big winner by virtue of maintaining and perhaps expending the Shiite Arc from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, and the strategic benefits it will derive. And, as long as Assad rules in Damascus, Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, will be the strongman in Beirut.
Of the primary losers in the Syrian civil war, the Obama administration is surely one of them. Obama’s support for what his administration termed as the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and their affiliates in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as a wedge against the more radical Islamists such as al-Qaeda, was exposed as a failure. In Egypt, the MB-led government is as dictatorial as the Mubarak regime, without the stability that Mubarak provided. The fall of the pro-Western regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, with Obama’s support, did not produce a democratic and liberal Arab Spring. It did, instead, foster increased anti-Western and anti-American radicalism. In Syria, the opposition forces are increasingly dominated by jihadist groups such as the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida offshoot.
The Arab Gulf states and especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also significant losers. Their massive financial and military support given to the Sunni rebels in Syria did not succeed in offsetting the Iranian support for Assad in personnel, arms, and cash, or for that matter, unseat Assad and his Alawi clan. Iran, in spite of international sanctions, has been able to sustain the Assad regime. According to the Economy Watch (January 17, 2013), “The export Development Bank of Iran as such will provide the Commercial Bank of Syria with $1 billion import credit line, allowing (Assad’s) Syria to source for consumer supplies from Iran at a time when it is hard for them to do so from many other countries.”
Turkey, another big loser, has played all its cards against Assad’s Syria at the cost of straining its relations with its other neighbors, Iran and Iraq. In the Muslim world moreover, many view Ankara as having aligned itself with the oppressive regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar as well as serving the interests of “imperialism and Zionism.” Ankara’s policy in the Syrian conflict, according to many in the Muslim world, does not advance the interests of Turkey or the cause of the Muslim Ummah. Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist Turkish Prime Minister, will now have to live under the shadow of Bashar Assad in Damascus.
Israel is the fourth loser in the Syrian conflict. Jerusalem failed to break the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah (and to a lesser extent Hamas) axis in spite of the wars it waged against Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in 2009 and late 2012. Most importantly, the Syrian civil war did not sever the Assad-Iran relationship. Iran’s influence in the region seems to be increasing as is Tehran’s nuclear threat. The only silver lining for Israel may be found in the prospect of a Kurdish state in north-eastern Syria.
While relatively moderate pro-Western Arab regimes fell like dominoes in the winter and spring of 2011, Bashar Assad of Syria, the one anti-Western regime allied with Iran, the West’s most dangerous foe, has defied the odds.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The man is counting unhatched chickens.
This guy’s analysis is premature. Assad does have more support than the other’s did, specifically Iran and Russia. But he’s going down and the Muzzie Radicals are taking over. That’s Obama’s plan and Israel is next. He’s even got Turkey for a Ho Chi Minh Trail.
He has a big backer, Russia. You realize we are at war with Russia by proxy in this Syria mess.
What a garbage article.. How is Israel a loser with Bashar Assad in power? Syria is just a corridor for weapons to hezbollah. The author makes it seem as if Extremist Salafist/Wahabist sunnis will be best friends with Israel. Quite the opposite, with Israel being surrounded with extremist sunni islamic nations it is better off having a secular minority government neighbour.
People forget the horror that men are capable of perpetrating in the name of religion, especially one as gruesome as islam. The version of islam preached by our “allies” is probably the most extreme in all of history, they are spreading their religion globally and outbreeding western countries in the hope of one day outnumbering them. This is no secret, sheikhs openly speak about this and make no effort to conceal it. Saudi arabia and qatar fund almost every single mosque construction in the world. the hezbollah iran syria axis is a political one which can easily be solved with a paleestinian solution. The saudi arabian extremist sunni problem can never be solved without extermination of one side or complete destruction of one religion simply due to the nature of wahabist thinking. Theyre so extreme that they will kill other muslims if they dont believe they are following the religion in the proper way.
Secondly, how are we losing in this? The only credible threat to us as a country remains to be sunni islam. Iran and the more moderate shiites are a political problem not a religious one.
In any case let the saudi camels deal with their own problems, after all theyre funding the “rebels” in syria, most of which are foreigners on holy war.
And this is exactly why people need to fear sunni islam. Sunni syrians will have no problem holding hands with other sunni foreigners in order to kill other syrians. Exactly the same as in lebanon, when the christians had conflicts with the palestinians, the sunni muslims waged war against the christian lebanese. There is no sense of nationalism, it has no meaning to them, there is only the sense of the muslim nation.
There is no best solution in this fight, but in regards to the balance of powers in the region it is best syria remains in the shiite column. That being said it was sunni muslims who attacked on 9/11, sunni muslims who tried to bomb planes, sunni muslims in london subway, sunni muslims in bali, sunni muslims in afghanistan, sunni muslims suicide bombing us/christians/shiites in iraq, and i would wager practically 99% of terrorist attacks since 9/11. My enemy for me is clear.
Look at the Bahraini shiites. The country is majority shiite yet the ruling family is a sunni dictator and they have been trying to peacefully remove them and set up a democratic election. Of course saudi arabia went in with their army and crushed them. Did we even have any news coverage on developments there since it began 2 years ago? I doubt it. Why? Because saudi arabia wants sunni power over there and the sunni in chief wants the same.
Thinking he is still president honestly makes me hate democrats with a passion unlike ever before and makes me hate the republican establishment for fielding a candidate as weak and uncharismatic as romney.
Is not Assad actually residing or exiled on some Ruski ship off the coast?
Pooty backs regional disrupters, just like back in the good ol KGB days.
Yeah, because the alternative is so much better. /s
From Israel's perspective, the ideal would be for the fighting to continue interminably, killing off a generation of jihadists.
I wish Assad would break out the nerve gas and wipe out those “rebels.”
“From Israel’s perspective, the ideal would be for the fighting to continue interminably, killing off a generation of jihadists. “
Exactly what should happen.
No you don’t. Chemical weapons are still WMDs, and invoke some truly hairy international consequences. Russia, in particular, would get seriously bent out of shape about it, as the US was always crystal clear that it regarded their use against some targets as pre-nuclear escalation.
When they were used during the Iran-Iraq war, officially the Reagan administration said little, but activities at the UNSC with the other powers were intense. Things only settled down when there was seen little chance of the war spilling over into other nations.
Syria could not assure that, and the use of chemical weapons by either side could provoke some serious punishment.
Don’t care what it takes, including nerve gas. I’d prefer Assad to win, despite his association with Iran and Hezbollah.
At the very least that would prevent the Moslem Botherhood from surrounding Israel and maybe pull some pressure off Jordan. But if Syria falls, you’re going see a push against Jordan. Good thing for Jordan that they don’t have a common border with Egypt. Unfortunately, the MB is already a strong factor in Jordanian politics.
At the same time, Assad is supported by Iran, which is more than willing that every Syrian die for them. Likewise, it is the pipeline of support for Hezbollah and even some Paleo groups. Iran also has fantasies of using the ally against the Sunni nations, and the MB in the region.
Assad also gets advanced weaponry from Russia to threaten Israel as well as Lebanon, and gives Russia a Mediterranean port.
Your arguments are persuasive as well, so I am more than happy that both sides attrit each other for a while more.
I am hoping for mutual destruction, myself.
But then we’ll have a failed state for Al Qaeda to move into.
Of course, Al Qaeda might not enjoy being next door to Israel...
Demographically, I don’t think Syria has what it takes to be a failed state. Too many neighbors want a piece of it.
For example, the Kurds in its North would be more than happy to secede and join Iraqi Kurdistan, which while deeply upsetting to both Turkey and Iran, would not be enough of a threat to either to do anything about it.
There has already been talk of dividing Syria North and South, with a de facto partition of Lebanon as well (which exists already), which would amount to Lebanon being everybody but Shiites, Hezbollah ruling over the left partition as a Shiite nation, and the majority Sunnis ruling over the right one, next to what to them would be the friendlier part of Sunni Iraq which they have long been a smuggling partner.
The wild cards would be the Paleos in Syria, for the most part allied with Assad, who the Sunnis would either want to kill or drive into Jordan, and likely several other serious variables, anybody’s guess.
That in itself signifies a meaningful victory for the Assad regime and the axis of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah, as well as Russia.Russia's all-in, and that's going to bite them in the ass when they make their inevitable exit (and that's a good thing). If the Russian regime weren't a Stalinist-style operation, they'd remove Putin, give him a tribunal as was done with Beria, and execute him.
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.