Monday, July 24, 2006
Money
Democratization? Syria? Please. Aren't we happy Qaddafi threw it in?
As Tigerhawk alluded, we have previously suggested that the diplomatic coup de jour would be prying Syria back into the Arab camp, and away from Iran. This would take pressure off of Iraq and Israel, and place it squarely on Iran (and the Shi'ite extremist crowd) and al qaeda (the sunni extremist crowd).
Hafez Assad leveled a town full of Islamists in Syria (Hama) that might have threatened him. After spending years in the Soviet camp, Assad made peace with the elder Bush during Persian Gulf War I. Why? The money! Hafez no longer had a call on Soviet aid, which he desperately needed to float his military.
Bashar doesn't have oil. He has, as they say, no visible means of support. We took away Lebanon, which besides being a nice place, is a source of economic booty for Syria. Hariri, generally aligned with Saudi business interests, competed the Lebanese prize away from Syria. It's why he was killed. With the west having reacted badly to Bashar's desire to keep Lebanon in the Syrian (bill)fold, the Syrian regime is destitute - without Iran, that is.
Like the Soviets before them, Iran provides Syria much needed economic support. Like the Soviets, this support is not endless. Despite a wealth of oil reserves, Iran is rather hopelessly organized economically. Still, Iran gives Syria more than anybody else does.
We can fix that. Just ask Egypt. And Jordan. And Israel.
When you have no cards, you survive by playing the lousy hand you have with great skill. Bashar will sell himself to the highest bidder who will keep him alive and fed. The way to Bashar and Co. is through his wallet. Just as Hafez did away with radical Islamists in Hama, it is not impossible to believe that Bashar could be convinced to do away wth radical Islamists hiding between Lebanon and Syria.
4 Comments:
By 
K. Pablo, at
Mon Jul 24, 02:56:00 PM:
Allow Syria in to Lebanon to clean out Hezbollah? You can't be Sirius.
Quite aside from the difficulty of getting the Syrian armed forces to do Baby Assad's bidding, this strategy is too close to allowing (Alawing?) the fox to guard the henhouse.
No, Syria has to stay out. Secondly, they have to cut off supplies to Hezb. Thirdly, they have to show full and meaningful compliance with Mossad and Western intelligence agencies regarding Hezbollah and anything they got on Iran: the Iraqi insurgency, Iranian WMD programs, etc . Fourth, they would have to do something like sign a treaty with Israel a la Sadat/Begin, and relinquish any further designs on Lebanon.
In return, they will likely demand the Golan (as they already are rumored to have stipulated) but they are not in a very good bargaining position right now.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Jul 24, 03:26:00 PM:
I think it could be simpler than all that actually. All Assad/Syria really need to do is serve up Nasrallah, Mugniyeh and Meshal on a platter. Those boys turn up dead, like Hariri, and Iran and Hezbollah will know the score. Once Bashar is that committed, he has to be onsides -- because otherwise he winds up unprotected himself.
When one deals with racketeering thugs, one has to think like, well, racketeering thugs.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Jul 24, 04:47:00 PM:
Not much - he has to do a Qaddafi. Hands high.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Jul 24, 05:01:00 PM:
Is prying Syria away from Iran enough?
if this happens and Iraq suddenly seems calmer, what's Iran's next move?
I have a couple of problems with this approach. first, it smacks of the good old "He's and SOB but he's our SOB" mentality that generated this cold war hangover we're having to face.
next, will the Arab/muslim world ever actually come to terms with the existence of Israel? SA seems in no rush to stem the tide of anti jew bile emanating from their mosques and news media. What about this deal changes that? nothing that I can see.
further, I tend to view Islam as a huge Mob enterprise and the old shakedown is what we're seeing now. We're getting the protection racket handed to us by some tin pot dictator in sand land and we're ok?
I'd like to here why my concerns are ill founded.
