You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
A new Iraq is forming in Syria
2005-11-25
By Ammar Abdulhamid
Although Syria has for long been hailed as one of the Arab world's most secular countries and the heart of Arab nationalism, its religious and ethnic diversity has always been more complex than this image suggests. The northeastern parts of Syria are inhabited mostly by Kurds and Assyrians, while the society's allegedly secular character has reflected, in reality, an informal though complex arrangement between the various religious groups in the country. In recent decades, the arrangement has involved, in particular, the majority Sunni population and the Alawite minority.

The arrangement was first introduced by President Hafiz Assad. It allowed, in essence, a core of Alawite officers to control the country's security, leaving management of the economy to a handful of Sunni, Christian and Druze officials and merchants. But the arrangement was by no means perfect and would have collapsed in the early 1980s had Assad not put down a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in the city of Hama. Memories of this event still loom heavily in the minds of many Syrians today.

The accession to power of President Bashar Assad in June 2000 threatened to dissolve this arrangement. Under the new leadership, the regime's main props narrowed to a clique centered on the president, his immediate family members and close friends. If the old arrangement was imperfect, its dissolution at the hands of the "new guard" was even worse. For the ruling elite did not offer any new vision for Syria's future. Transparency, reform, modernization and development were words often used by Assad and his advisers, but, for the most part, they remained just that: words. No programs, policies or action plans were offered. As later developments would show, this fact seemed to denote not only a lack of interest in such matters on the part of the new guard, but, more importantly, a lack of real understanding of the basics of governance and of the nature of the global geopolitical changes that took place following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Syria's old patron. As a result, the history of the last five years has been characterized by endemic corruption, adventurism and serious miscalculations paving the way for the regime's current international isolation.

Indeed, under the current regime, Syria seems to be heading toward disaster, a point recently highlighted by Assad's petulant defiance of the international community and his refusal to cooperate with the ongoing UN probe into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. But this is not surprising: a witness seems to have already implicated the president's brother and brother-in-law, and this fact could well point the finger at the very top of Syria's leadership.

It is safe to say, therefore, that in these circumstances, the Syrian regime is no longer really viable, and that a search for an alternative is now not only legitimate, but mandatory as well in order to preserve regional stability and prevent the creation of another haven for jihadists and terrorists. However, and since no one can rationally advocate recourse to another militaristic venture in the region, the downfall of the Syrian regime is better induced through a combination of diplomatic pressures, targeted economic sanctions and various activities and gestures meant to empower the internal opposition in the country and perhaps also the growing disaffection within the middle ranks of the army.
Continues at the link. Goes to reinforce my contention that Baby Assad will be history by next 9-11.
Posted by:Fred

#3  It would seem, on the face of it, that Iran would have a difficult time establishing itself in Syria other than providing the kindling for the uprising. With the dominance of Sunni...and Kurds...it would seem pretty difficult for the Shiites to actually get a foothold.
Posted by: anymouse   2005-11-25 07:48  

#2  Remember that Assad's power, like Saddam's, is based in violence. In a people traumatized by decades of dictatorship, for a while you can get away with fewer secret police and crackdowns-being short handed with thugs. It takes a while for the people both to recognize weakness, and even longer for them to organize to do something about it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-11-25 07:47  

#1  Assad may be weak, but if he falls, who takes over? Other Alewite/military types? Or does the country fall into a civil war? If a civil war, it would seem like an Iranian-supported faction of Islamists would have the edge. And maybe that Islamist element would attack Israel amidst the chaos of the civil war, using it as a means of uniting other elements behind it and also of justifying military 'support' from Iran.
Posted by: Glenmore   2005-11-25 07:25  

00:00