Not if but when

A May 25 first-rate panel on Syria at the Carnegie Endowment had a clear bottom line:  Bashar al Assad might survive in power for a while, but not for long. I took this to mean a year, not more.

Ammar Abdulwahid led off noting that the protests in North Africa and the Middle East should not have been a surprise to anyone who read the Arab human development reports: demographic growth, the youth bulge, unemployment, governments incapable of reform and out-of-touch oppositions, combined with the recent availability of social media, made the protests inevitable. The results of the protests in Tunisia gave the Syrians confidence. At the same time, Bashar al Assad–having broken out of the international isolation he suffered after the Hariri assassination–disappointed Syrian expectations.

The result is a movement which is now “self-organizing” with a clear goal: Bashar out. The next step will be organization of a transitional council, like the one in Libya but necessarily outside Syria under current conditions. A upcoming conference in Turkey will move in the direction of forming such a council. There is no possibility of restoring the status quo ante. A new era has already begun. The protesters are reaching out to the West and the United States for support.

The shift in President Obama’s speech last week was welcome, even if it rhetorically retained the option of Bashar staying to lead reforms, something that will not happen. The President needs to go farther and ask that Bashar step down–only that will convince regime loyalists to turn against him.

Murhaf Jouejati agreed there is no going back. Bashar al Assad has lost his legitimacy and authority. What is needed now is a “pincer movement” of the domestic and international forces to squeeze him out. The regime is determined to survive, and it may do so, but not for long. The economy is a shambles, inflation is up, oil production is down and the government can’t afford to keep the promises it is making.

Itamar Rabinovich said Israel is ambivalent about Bashar al Assad, who is at war with Israel but has kept the peace. Israel destroyed a Syrian reactor being built secretly by the North Koreans in 2007, but Bashar never retaliated. Israelis want to know, “what is the alternative?” The Palestinian demonstrations at the fence on the Golan Heights were an attempt to demonstrate the credibility of Makhlouf’s threat of instability if Bashar falls. Syria has a large number of Scud missiles that would create real problems for Israel. For the moment, there is definitely no “Syria option” for the peace process.

The regime will not survive, but it is unclear what will come next. Certainly the fall of Bashar al Assad would weaken Iran’s position, and Israelis naturally like the idea of a more democratic Syria. But the road to democracy is bumpy and bad things can happen along the way. It is particularly important that the peace agreement with Egypt be maintained–if it is not, Israel will not trust any agreements in the future.

Tamara Wittes reiterated that Syria has changed irrevocably as a result of the mass murders and arrests. Contrary to its claims, the regime is not a source of stability but of instability. The U.S. is pushing Bashar al Assad every day to stop the violence, release the prisoners and accept human rights monitors. There is little possibility he will agree. The international community is preparing additional sanctions that will sharpen the choice. Change is coming; we need to focus on how it happens.

Paul Salem, while agree the issue is not if but when, raised the question of what will happen? A Syrian implosion would affect the whole region. There is a possibility the regime will hang on for a while, even that Bashar might move in the direction of reform. There is also the possibility of civil war, perhaps with a quick opposition victory. Or a prolonged period of Syrian weakness, as in the period 1945-58. In short, there is a baffling array of scenarios.

The neighbors are each looking out for their interests. Turkey is pressing Bashar for reforms, which it prefers to come from the top down. Not wanting democracy to spread, Saudi Arabia is supporting the regime, at least in part as a quid pro quo for Syrian support on Bahrain. Egypt has already welcomed Hamas back from Syria. Iran is worried that its position in the region could be seriously damaged. A Sunni takeover in Syria would cut Hizbollah off from Iran.

In response to questions, Ammar said the middle class is protesting in the Damascus suburbs, less so in Aleppo. He thought a clear statement that Bashar must leave office is required before the army will engage seriously against the regime. Murhaf underlined that the protestors need to alleviate the fears of minorities like the Alawis and the Christians, who otherwise will stick with the regime. Salem and Rabinovich agreed Hizbollah will not risk a war with Israel, but it may be tempted to provoke further border incidents.

The protesters still face an uphill battle, because the wall of fear is not completely broken. The older generation is still not taking to the streets, and the demonstrations–while widespread–are not massive. But something irreversible has happened–it remains to be seen whether the outcome can be kept on a path towards democracy.

I might say the same thing about Libya and Yemen, where autocrats are holding on well after their sell by dates. Success in ousting Muammar Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh would no doubt have an inspirational effect also on Syrians.

PS: Read also Andrew Tabler on the end of days for Bashar al Assad.