There are three possible outcomes to the Syrian civil war:
-
1. Assad continues in power. This is bad as he is allied with Iran and Hizballah and attacks Israel through Lebanon. On the plus side, however, the regime will continue to be weak and unlikely to attack Israel directly. The regime will also continue to be anti-American in every way.
2. Assad is overthrown by MB/Sunni Islamist dominated government. This is worse. Such a regime is likely to believe–mistakenly–that it can attack U.S. interests and Israel with impunity.
3. Assad is overthrown by forces that lead to a regime of moderate, led by Sunni liberals, allied with Druze and Kurdish nationalists and with Christians. That would be better. Remember that only 60 percent of Syrians are Sunni Muslim Arabs and the Brotherhood has always been far weaker in Syria than in Egypt.
The most likely outcome: 1, continuation of status quo.
What should West do? Try for 3. What is the West, and especially the United States, doing? Vacillating between 1, don’t give Assad too hard a time, and 3, let Turkey–which favors option 3–take the lead and support the pro-Islamist Syrian National Council (SNC). Does saying the West should go for 3 and help the moderates do any harm? No, because the Obama Administration isn’t going to pay attention and by the time the next president of the United States is inaugurated even if that is Mitt Romney it will probably be too late.
So let’s tell the truth about the situation that exists and call for the best policy but be totally aware that this isn’t going to happen.
Note 1: If your view is, “Let them kill each other forever,” aside from the moral implications of cheering the deaths of thousands of civilians and a lot of people who really want a moderate democracy, this civil war won’t last forever.
Note 2: If your view is, “They’re all Islamists so let Assad stay in power,” you’ll probably get your wish.
Note 3: If your view is that Assad is better because his regime is “secular” you are ten years out of date. Sure, Assad isn’t an Islamist but his policy has been to do everything possible to support Hamas, Hizballah, Iran. He also encouraged the rise of radical Sunni Islamist preachers at home. Read any of his speeches and they portray him as the leader of the Arab “resistance,” all of whose forces nowadays outside Syria are Islamists.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
There is no such thing as “moderates” in Muslim countries and anyone who pitches such fairy tales is not to be trusted with anything.
Mr Rubin’s analysis neglected to mention:
Possible outcome 4, segmentation of Syria into separate and autonomous Alalwi, Sun’a Arab, Christian and Kurdish regions, similar to the outcome of the American adventure in Iraq that pulled down the Baathist government of Saddam Hussein.
That, in my judgement, will be the most likely outcome if Bashir Assad’s Syrian Army dissolves amid the chaos of civil war. This certainly is the outcome sought by the Kurds, and is one that Israel should accept and on behalf of which, arm the Kurdish fighting forces.
Unless other information of recent days is incorrect, a force of Russian naval infantry is in the process of occupying the deepwater Syrian Mediterranean port of Tartus, reportedly under terms of a quasi-secret understanding with the US that the far western regions of Syria will be kept under Russian influence, while the interior parts will fall under US influence. But if the Alawi-controlled Syrian Army is broken, it is hard to imagine any foreign armed force marching into the mountains of far northeastern Syria to put down Kurdish separatists.
And yes, I am convinced that a united Kurdistan is more in Israel’s long-term interests than any other outcome of the Syrian civil war.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
My view is, “Let them kill each other forever,”
The only moral implication is that while the are killing each other they are not killing Jews
Putin is back!
Russia Reportedly Preparing 2 Divisions, Spetsnaz Brigade for Deployment to Syria
If NATO succeeds the Wahhabi Saudis will Massacre The Syrian Christians and Alawites, 20% of Syrian population.
Nobody can predict how Putin will react but he is sure to react, Just like Russia putting their most up to date anti-missile missiles in ‘Kalingrad’ checking NATO deployment in Poland and Turkey.
I wonder how Obama expects to win an election after the guys he supported materially massacres Christians and Syrian minorities?
“aside from the moral implications of cheering the deaths of thousands of civilians”
And those are…?