Posted on 04/05/2003 7:33:09 AM PST by knighthawk
THE END OF BAATHIST SYRIA?
As Bernard Lewis recently explained on these pages, Saddam Hussein's Baath party is rooted in Nazi ideology. Thus do many Western experts, drawing on the post-war German model, speak of Iraq's de-Baathification as a necessary step for the emergence of a humane, pluralistic regime in Baghdad.
But Iraq is not the only country to come under the sway of Baathism's poisonous mixture of socialism and pan-Arabism. For four decades, Syria too has been run by Baathists. And while Bashar Assad, the country's ruler, is not nearly as cruel as Saddam, Syria, like Iraq, is a hatemongering rogue dictatorship that has developed an ambitious chemical and biological weapons program. Several terrorist groups openly maintain their headquarters in Damascus, and Assad permits Hezbollah to attack Israel from Syrian-controlled Lebanon.
While Iraq and Syria have squabbled in recent decades in their bid for Baathist supremacy, they have recently formed friendly ties. For years, Syria has relied on cheap, illegal Iraqi oil, helping Saddam circumvent the UN-sponsored oil-for-food program in the process. Damascus permits the passage of suicidal Arab volunteers into Iraq to join the fight against coalition forces, and the U.S. government alleged this week that Syria has transferred military equipment to Baghdad. Israeli intelligence reports have also raised the possibility that Iraq's store of chemical and biological agents were transferred to Syria before the war, along with long-range surface-to-surface missiles.
The United States, which will soon be staring Syria eye-to-eye from the other side of the Iraqi-Syrian border, has had enough. "Syria can continue to direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course," said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell last week. "Either way, Syria has the responsibility for its choices and for the consequences."
When Bashar took over from his father, Hafez, who died in 2000, there were hopes the British-educated ophthalmologist would initiate political reform and open up the country's moribund economy to outside trade and investment. Instead, the government remains isolated, and continues to blame its problems on Israel's control of the Golan Heights, an economically and demographically insignificant postage stamp of land in the southern part of the country. If Saddam's demise brings democracy and prosperity to Iraq in coming years, Syrians will likely lose patience with their government's demagogic claims and dictatorial methods. Moreover, the country will be surrounded on four sides -- Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan -- by pro-Western regimes.
It will be only a matter of time, in other words, before the world's other Baathist dictatorship falls. Few will mourn its passing.
TURKEY AND THE KURDS
While the war against Saddam Hussein was supposed to be waged on two fronts, the deployment of forces has been highly unbalanced. In the south, a six-figure juggernaut has raced from Kuwait to the southern suburbs of Baghdad. In the north, however, the U.S. presence consists of a tiny detachment from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which parachuted into Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq a week ago. With tens of thousands of Kurdish fighters itching to attack Saddam's forces under U.S. leadership, why has the United States failed to establish a major northern presence?
The reason, in a word, is Turkey. The original plan was for 62,000 U.S. ground forces to enter northern Iraq from that country, with the high-tech, highly armored Fourth Infantry Division leading the charge. But days before the war began, with U.S. ships sitting off Turkey's coast, waiting to unload the 4th Infantry's tanks and trucks, Turkey's Parliament narrowly voted down the plan -- despite the U.S. government's offer of a US$15-billion aid package. In the end, the best the Turks could do was permit the Pentagon to run its supply train through Turkish territory, and its combat aircraft through the country's air-space.
Washington has good cause to be disappointed with Ankara's decision: Thanks to the absence of a second front, Saddam was able to reinforce his Republican Guard units south of Baghdad with units drawn from the north. Still, we have some sympathy for the position of newly elected Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Nineteen out of 20 Turks oppose the war in Iraq. And since the country's government is democratically elected -- a rarity in the Muslim world -- Mr. Erdogan and his ministers are accountable for their decision. Moreover, Ankara has for decades been obsessed with eradicating separatism among its 13-million Kurds. If Iraq's Kurdish militias take Kirkuk, seize its oil, and create a well-armed Kurdish state, Turkey's Kurds may agitate for similar autonomy.
Indeed, Turkish forces have been threatening to invade portions of northern Iraq -- to prevent a refugee invasion and protect the ethnic Turkmen population they say. Washington is desperate to avoid this scenario -- as it would force the United States to choose sides between a NATO ally and a loyal, indigenous Iraqi force (which George Bush Sr. let down after the first Gulf War). The only solution is to ensure that Turkish, U.S., Kurdish and local Arab interests are all suitably protected in the aftermath of the current war - an outcome that many experts say can only be guaranteed (if at all) if the Kurds accept limited autonomy within a federalized Iraq.
The stakes here are large. If the United States permits aggressive Kurd militias to overwhelm Mosul and Kirkuk in coming weeks, and thereby precipitate a Turkish invasion, the stage could be set for a messy second war. Thus, even as U.S. military commanders focus their attention on the climactic battle in Baghdad, they must ensure that events in the northern part of the country unfold in a manner that permits a peaceful dénouement.
WHITHER IRAN'S AYATOLLAHS
Much has been made of Iraq's links with al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups. But neighbouring Iran is an even more active sponsor of terrorism. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979 installed a Shiite theocracy in Tehran, the country has consistently used terrorism to advance the twin goals of opposing the United States and seeking the destruction of Israel.
The FBI currently lists three members of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist group, on its list of 22 Most Wanted Terrorists. Hezbollah is believed responsible for the attack on the American barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Marines and injured hundreds more. There is also the July 18, 1994 bombing of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Aid Association in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people, and which investigators in Israel, the United States and Argentina have concluded was carried out by terrorists armed and trained by the government of Iran. A high-level defector from Iran's intelligence agency, Abdolghassem Mesbahi, has testified that the Iranian government planned the bombing and paid Argentina's then-president, Carlos Menem, US$10-million to cover it up.
Iran supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the leading practitioners of suicide terrorism against Israel. In January 2002, Israeli commandos seized the Karine A, a ship carrying 50 tons of arms supplied by Iran. The ship was en route to the Palestinian Authority and it was understood that the delivery of the weapons -- which included Katyusha rockets, antitank missiles, and plastic explosives -- would have seriously escalated the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Iran's Supreme Leader has referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed. Many Israelis fear Iran's nuclear program, which might be able to produce weapons-grade fissile material within a few years, may be aimed at that objective.
The liberation of Iraq could cause new friction between the United States and Iran: Reports surfaced this week that Tehran may send fedayeen-like irregulars into five Iraqi cities -- including the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala -- to sow anti-U.S. discord. But in the long run, the Ayatolahs and their rogue campaigns are on their way out. Twenty-four years after the revolution, many Iranians are disillusioned with political Islam, and seek democratic freedoms. The nation's parliament, though largely stymied by the country's clerisy, is now dominated by reformists who seek to strengthen civil society, eliminate media censorship and reduce the ties between mosque and state.
A full-blown counter-revolution isn't likely in the cards for a few years yet. But eventually, it will come. Unlike in Arab nations, where the population tends to be more anti-American than their governments, many ordinary Iranians seem unapologetically drawn to U.S.-style pop and consumer culture. And while the plight of the Palestinians resonates deeply in Iran, as it does in other Muslim nations, Iranians now realize that the issue is being manipulated by the clerics to deflect domestic discontent -- an epiphany most Arabs have never experienced.
The fall of Saddam and the installation of a representative government in Iraq can only help bolster the cause of Iran's reformers. And as with Iraq, a democratic transformation in Iran will be good news for the whole region. Given the serious economic problems besetting Iran, it is unlikely a democratic government would continue to fritter the nation's budget away on state-sponsored terrorism and other forms of proxy warfare.
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.