October 4, 2005

GIVE THEM THEIR OWN FIGHT:

Ousting Assad without a backup plan (Ehsan Ahrari, 10/05/05, Asia Times)

There are reports in the Western media that the inquiry of special UN investigator Deltev Mehlis into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is nearing a conclusion. Four actors, who are either interested in it or will be affected by it, are driven by varying and somewhat conflicting agendas.

The US is hoping to use the Mehlis report to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. Lebanon wants to use it to rehabilitate its national sovereignty. The Arab states are worried about the potential instability in Syria, which is next door to Iraq, and about the erosion of another Arab state that can pose even a semblance of challenge to Israel. Israel, on the contrary, is anticipating the removal of a thorn from its side. Then, it will only have to concentrate on confronting Iran.

The least-contemplated aspect of a potential regime change in Syria might be the potential rise of influence and potency of pan-jihadi forces in Syria, if the Assad regime is ousted with the same lack of regard to having a stable government taking its place as happened at the time of the US invasion of Iraq.

It is not Syria's alleged involvement in Hariri's assassination that is bothering the Bush administration. Rather, it is Syria's role related to the rising tide of insurgency in Iraq that is immeasurably frustrating the US. America's stakes in Iraq are appearing too grim, and Syria, more than Iran, is getting the blame because the insurgency is predominantly Sunni.

Even though Assad's regime in Syria represents the rule of the Alawite sect (which is Shi'ite), Syria is a predominantly Sunni state. As such, the Sunni insurgents of Iraq are reported to be finding considerable sympathy in Syria.


Topple Assad, sheer off the Kurdish areas, and fund a Shi'ite insurgency and you'll have the jihadis on the defensive in Syria, instead of the offensive in Iraq.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 4, 2005 8:56 AM
Comments

There on the defensive in Iraq too, no? Better to say "on the defensive in Syria, rather than in Iraq".

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 4, 2005 11:08 AM

They have nothing to defend in Iraq.

Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 11:27 AM

Dar al Islam.

We attacked, they came to defend.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 4, 2005 11:40 AM

They hate the Shi'ites.

Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 11:43 AM

A more realistic approach would be a policy of hot pursuit of the Jihadi into Syria, with air support.

Posted by: Genecis at October 4, 2005 11:59 AM

And if Israel simultaneously masses tanks on the Syrian border - without crossing the line - Assad will be gone faster than a forgotten wallet on the counter of a 7-11.

Posted by: obc at October 4, 2005 12:11 PM

Genecis: And a few errant missiles which unfortunately hit strategic targets in Damascus would be an additional benefit.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 4, 2005 12:57 PM

Sorry, what do Shiites have to do with Sunni nujobs flocking to Iraq to defend dar al Islam?

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 4, 2005 1:58 PM

there's nothing for them to defend.

Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 2:10 PM
« THANK HU: | Main | WHY BOTHER?: »