The worst of all possible worlds
It is getting hard to keep score, though this graphic from Al Jazeera English may help. Today’s big news is the defection of Syria’s prime minister, who didn’t like Bashar al Asad’s “war crimes and genocide.” About time he noticed. There are reports also of more military defections, even as the battle for Aleppo continues.
Does any of this matter? Or does Bashar get to hold on to his shrinking turf despite going into hiding and losing the support of regime stalwarts?
Michael Hanna offers an important part of the answer in a Tweet this morning:
Syrian defections follow strictly sectarian pattern, likely hardening core support. 1st big Alawi defection, if it comes,will be devastating
The Asad regime is increasingly relying on a narrow base of Alawite/Shia (about 12-13% of the population) support, as Sunnis (like the prime minister) peel away and denounce Bashar’s violence against the civilian population, which is majority Sunni. Christians and Druze have also been distancing themselves, and Kurds have taken up arms against the regime (without however aligning themselves with the opposition). The opposition draws its strength from the majority population and is supported by Sunni powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. What we are witnessing is a regional sectarian war in the making, one that could last a long time and involve ever-widening circles in the Levant.
The Alawites fight tenaciously because they think they know what is coming. This is an “existential” war for them: if the lose, they believe they will be wiped out.
That, along with Russian and Iranian support, could make this go on for a long time. If it does, the consequences for Syria and the region will be devastating. Damascus has already unleashed extremist Syrian Kurds to attack inside Turkey. Jordan is absorbing more than 100,000 Syrian refugees. Iraq’s efforts to guard its border with Syria have led to a confrontation with its own Kurdish peshmerga. Fighting between Sunnis and Alawites has spread to Lebanon, which is also absorbing large numbers of Syrian refugees. The Syrian opposition claims to have captured 48 Iranians in Damascus, sent there to help the regime (Tehran unabashedly claims they were religious pilgrims).
Breaking this self-reinforcing cycle of sectarian polarization is an interest broadly shared in the international community. As The Economist pointed out last week, Russian interests won’t be served if Syria descends into total chaos. Some would like to suggest that territorial separation is a solution. This is nonsense: no one will agree on the lines to be drawn, which will be decided by force of arms directed against the civilian population. That is the truth of what happened in Bosnia, however much the myth-makers delude themselves.
There are several ways the violence might end:
- a definitive victory by the opposition (it is hard now to picture a definitive victory by the regime).
- an international intervention to separate the warring forces and impose what the U.S. military likes to call a “safe and secure environment.”
- a coup from within the regime, followed by a “pacted” (negotiated) transition.
Any of these would be better than continuation of the current chaos, which is the worst of all possible worlds. But I’m afraid that is the mostly likely course of events until Moscow and Washington get together and decide to collaborate in ending the bloodshed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
3 thoughts on “The worst of all possible worlds”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
As far as I see it (on several ways):
– Definitive victory by the opposition without international community being involved will be be a bloodshed by the opposition forces and when they’re done with non-Sunni pro-regime they’ll turn on each other. End result will be that Iran and all of its population will be ready to fight to death and if Iran is not already convinced that only nuclear weapons can save them as a Persians, Shia, Zoroastrian, Bahais, Jews, Christians, Nation, Country, population (and that they’re not convinced that nuclear weapon is the only solution for Iran security (North Korea comes to mind as an example to support the way they conjecture on this) might very well be the case) they would be then. Every non-Sunni in the region would perceive this as an existential threat.
– International intervention whether diplomatic or military in support for democratic prospect was always the only way. It’s sad that Russia and China cannot see this. However the poison here is Saudi Arabia and the reason why Russia and China aren’t behind the resolution.
– A coup from within the regime would have to happen one way or another and it would have to happen with some form of international intervention.
In both cases international intervention would had to serve only one purpose: stop of sectarian violence if it’s to have any legitimacy in the eyes on Russia, China and keep open not having to fight Iran to death in the future.
As far as it goes I consider Saudi Arabia as real trouble maker in the world. Financing Wahhabi movement they’re directly involved with Al Qaeda via Taliban movement. They’re financing every scientific effort in the world that would reduce the world dependency on oil (in the USA as well via Fox anti scientific and pro oil agenda). I know it’s in their interest to keep the world dependent on their product and that would be all right with me if they weren’t to use that profit to fund religious extremism that is in its zeal equal to Al Qaeda. Let’s assume that Saudi Arabia achieves its goals and there’s Sunni rule in the whole region. Iran is eradicated (it would had to come close to that for this to succeed). How would this reflect on Israel? Would this be the same crazy plan like attacking the only opponent to Iran just for the sake of petty profit which in the end proved to cost more than it can return in decades to come (except for war profiteers).
In the light of search for the future solution for Iran we must move toward the world with the most reason of all the possible worlds. Because they’re in the reach of reason.
Remember Yugoslavia, where a strident anti-Serb Western policy motivated by hatred for Milosevic led the Serb leadership to decide that there was no alternative to taking up the arms?
Now we see the same happening in Syria. Our consistent support for the opposition and our consistent sabotage of any negotiations between Assad and the opposition put the Alawites with their back to the wall.
In the mean time we have allied ourselves with genocidal preachers like “chop them” Arour and “kill a third of Syrians so the other two-thirds may live” Luhaidan. No wonder the Alawites don’t trust our guarantees for after the revolution.
This is very much different from Milosevic. Milosevic (and complete Yugoslavia leadership) had opportunity not to go to war. Milosevic decided to go to war against every UN decision (the reason why so called Milosevic’s YU was expelled from the UN). Actually the USA had offered a great deal of money to Yugoslavia if they were to stay together. It is highly likely that Milosevic created the war together with Tudjman for them both to achieve their ideological and territorial goals. Though one was nationalists and other communist, they both shared the desire to stay in power for life and territorial pretensions on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both, Croatia and Serbia are aware of this, and that shapes their policy toward Bosnia and Herzegovina (and many of the problems we find there today) under the light that Bosnia and Herzegovina has merits to sue both countries for damages. In this light Syria similarity with Balkan is violence between different religious groups and thus the very same reason why international community must put a stop to it like it did on Balkan. To contain the issue in a way that will prevent greater problems down the road.