Assad is sane but not secure

The headline writers are suggesting that Syria’s Bashar al Assad has lost his mind, and others that his speech today at Damascus University betrays weakness, but I take him seriously.  Bashar is determined to stay in power, offering ill-defined amnesty and national dialogue with 100 regime-picked reformers while cracking down on “vandals” and “saboteurs,” who he claims are part of a conspiracy ensconced among the street protesters.  The result is regime murder on a scale that dwarfs what happened in Egypt and Yemen, though it is still far from Gaddafi’s homicidal intentions in Benghazi or his siege of Misrata and other Libyan towns.

While many are appalled at what is going on, the international community has so far done little to stop it.  The military option is clearly out, not only because of Syria’s problematic topology but also because the Russians–offended by the NATO effort against Libya–are not going to allow a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the necessary means to pass.  In fact, they haven’t allowed any resolution to pass, not even one that simply condemns the regime’s violence, because they are afraid of again sanctioning NATO action.  They should relax:  there is no stomach in Washington and European capitals for another military intervention.

Bashar’s vulnerabilities lie in two areas:  arms and money.  It appears he has all the weapons he requires, but the loyalty of a substantial portion of the army is in doubt.  Its Alawi leadership will stick with the regime, because it has no alternative, but sporadic indications of dissent among the Sunni officers and rank and file offer some hope that the army has its limits.  Look for it to show those limits in the provinces first, not in Damascus or Aleppo.

As for money, the Syrian economy is certainly on the ropes, but I imagine Iran will do its damndest to keep Bashar financially afloat.  He is an important link to Lebanon’s Hizbollah, which is Iran’s surrogate on the front line with Israel.  It is hard to believe that Tehran would let Bashar fall for lack of hard cash.

Tougher international sanctions targeted on the regime’s financial transfers might make some difference, as might a credible threat of an International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment.  The ICC though won’t be allowed into the country to collect evidence.  It was able to move against Gaddafi only because the rebels welcomed the court into the Libyan territory they control.  I hope however that the ICC investigators are interviewing refugees in Turkey and Lebanon.

Would a clear statement from President Obama calling for Bashar to step down make a difference?  I think not, and it would put American credibility at risk.  We are already taking a beating from Gaddafi’s persistence in power in Libya, as well as Saleh’s in Yemen.  Better it seems to me to lean on the Turks, who have influence and have begun to pressure Bashar.

He is unlikely to leave easily or soon, though like any decision by a single person timing is unpredictable.  It is clear however that the foundations of his regime are shaken.  His promise of amending the constitution to allow a multiparty political system would spell the end of the Ba’athist autocracy.  He may try to renege of course, but Syrians show no sign of willingness to accept restoration of the status quo ante.  One way or the other, we are witnessing the end of the Assad regime.

PS:  Andrew Sullivan quoted this piece at The Dish, apparently having picked it up from Al Jazeera English.  Regulars read it here first!