Gwynne Dyer: Middle East will be shaken up if Assad falls in Syria

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      It’s safe to say that we will never see an alliance between Israel and al-Qaeda. Yet Syria’s government-controlled media hint that this evil alliance exists as they grasp at any explanation, however implausible, that might discredit the antigovernment protests that have shaken the Baath Party’s half-century grip on power.

      The regime’s security forces have killed more than 200 Syrians since the protests began in mid-March. But government spokesmen insist that they were shot down by “armed elements” who also attacked the police and the army. These armed elements are allegedly in the pay of the Israelis or of al-Qaeda.

      It’s ridiculous, and nobody believes it, but what else are the official media going to say? That the Syrian people, without distinction of ethnicity or creed, are moving toward a nonviolent revolution aimed at overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad and the whole Baathist apparatus of power? They can’t admit that, so they tell preposterous lies instead.

      Assad’s response to the threat has followed the pattern of other Arab dictators who have already lost power: he makes concessions, but always too little and too late. On Thursday (April 21), for example, he finally declared the lifting of the 48-year-old “state of emergency”, which allowed the regime to arrest anybody and hold them without charge.

      It wasn’t much of a concession, really, since the security forces still have immunity no matter what they do. And the courts are under the regime’s thumb. But if Assad had announced it two weeks ago, it might have taken some of the steam out of the protest movement.

      Now it’s too late. On Friday (April 22) the protesters came out of the mosques after prayers, as usual, and the regime’s troops killed some of them, as usual.

      The Syrian regime seems even more unimaginative and inflexible than the regimes that have already gone under in Tunisia and Egypt, so it really could go down.

      It’s time to ask what the fall of Assad and the Syrian Baathists would mean for the whole region. The answer is: it could change everything.

      Syria is the linchpin of the alliance system that has defined the region’s politics since the late 1970s. That was when Egypt made peace with Israel, and the “Islamic” revolution overthrew the shah in Iran.

      It was a complete reversal of the old order, for Egypt had previously led the Arab resistance to Israel’s conquest of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while Iran under the shah had been America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

      Egypt, in order to regain its own Israeli-occupied territory, effectively abandoned the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and became a tacit ally of Israel. Jordan also made peace with Israel, and after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the south of that country remained under Israeli occupation for 20 years.

      Of all Israel’s Arab neighbours, only Syria remained a serious military opponent. Maybe the Baathist regime there would also have made peace with Israel if it could have got its own occupied territory in the Golan Heights back, but Israel was never willing to make that concession. So Syria was alone and desperately needed allies—and the only potential ally in sight was the new Islamic regime in Iran.

      It was unusual for any Arab country to make an alliance with Iran. It was doubly strange for Syria to do so, because the Baathist regime there has always been militantly secular. But international politics makes for strange bedfellows, so Syria got into bed with Iran.

      When the Hezbollah guerrilla resistance to Israeli occupation emerged in southern Lebanon, it also became a member of this peculiar Syria-Iran alliance. And when the Hamas movement emerged in the Gaza Strip, it also joined the club.

      This ill-assorted group of countries and movements—Iran and Hezbollah run by Shia extremists, Hamas dominated by Sunni fanatics, and Syria a totally secular state—has provided the only real opposition to Israeli policy in the region for the past 30 years. Without Syria, it would fall apart, and both Hezbollah and Hamas would be gravely weakened.

      That could easily happen if the Baathists lose control in Syria—and almost every other government in the region is deeply worried by the prospect of a democratic Syria.

      Iran fears the loss of its main Arab ally and condemns the Syrian protesters even as it praises the revolutionaries in other Arab countries. The remaining dictatorships in the Arab world are appalled that the rot has spread to Syria: if this bastion of tyranny can go down, what hope is there for the rest of them?

      And Israel doesn’t even know what to hope for. It loathes the Baathist regime in Syria and would love to see Hamas and Hezbollah weakened, but it fears that a democratic government in Syria would be an even more implacable enemy of Israel.

      The same goes for the United States, so the Syrian protesters are entirely on their own. If the Baathists try to solve their problem by massacre, as they have done in the past, nobody will raise a finger to stop them.

      But the protesters could still win. Massacres don’t always have the desired effect.

      Gwynne Dyer’s latest book, Crawling from the Wreckage, was published recently in Canada by Random House.

      Comments

      7 Comments

      Kristin1232

      Apr 22, 2011 at 12:03pm

      And you don't think it already has been shaken up? The whole place is a ticking time bomb...there is no turning back. Assad is done...Hama didn't have the exposure that these revolutions are now receiving. I'm afraid to say there is too much blood on Assad and his regimes hands for him to stay.

      Y.

      Apr 23, 2011 at 9:01am

      Dyer seems to know very little about the Middle East.

      First, back in the seventies-eighties, Syria had the full support of the Soviet superpower. Its turning toward Iran was thus not due to lack of allies, but had two other reasons:
      *The mutual hatred between the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athist parties. Iraq was fighting Iran, and should it have won, than it might have turned its sights towards Syria next.
      *The Syrian Regime is constituted of the Alawi minority, which is considered heretical by many Muslims. The Iranians have been willing to grant it religious legitimacy by considering it a part of mainstream Shi'ite Islam - an especially critical consideration in a country which was deadlocked in a fight vs the Muslim Brotherhood (said fight would later lead to the Hama Massacre).

      Second, the Syrian regime is hardly as militantly secular as Dyer describes. In reality there had been a silent understanding (ever since the failed Muslim Brotherhood uprising) that the regime would allow the clerics to control social norms in return for political quietism. See Landis' research on that.

      Third, Israel actually had foolish Leftist leaders which did offer Syria the Golan. The reason the negotiations failed in 2000 was that Syria demanded an extra parcel of territory next to the Tiberias Lake, which would have given it critical water rights. This was a bridge too far even for then-PM Barak.

      Fourth, Syria is by now very secondary in the anti-Israeli axis. Syria didn't even dare respond after Israel attacked its nuclear reactor. In a world where Iranian ships can simply pass the Suez Canal, Iran, Hizballah and Hamas don't need Syria even for transport.

      Y.

      Apr 23, 2011 at 9:05am

      Oh, and Egypt did not "lead the Arab resistance to Israel’s conquest of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" - rather it led the Arab "resistance" to Israel's existence - which led to the war where Israel took over these territories.

      Birdy

      Apr 23, 2011 at 5:29pm

      re: "The same goes for the United States, so the Syrian protesters are entirely on their own." That is 100% BS, and I hereby declare shenanigans on Gwynne. US has been funding and planning this "uprising" since 2006, and they're not hiding it anymore, as the article below proves in no uncertain terms.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/04/18/syria-united-states-backin...

      The U.S. State Department acknowledged Monday it has been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, following the release of secret diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks that document the funding.

      The files show that up to $6.3 million US was funneled to the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based dissident organization that operates the Barada TV satellite channel, which broadcasts anti-government news into Syria.

      Another $6 million went to support a variety of initiatives, including training for journalists and activists, between 2006 and 2010.

      Asked point-blank by reporters whether the United States is funding Syrian opposition groups, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told a news conference Monday, "We are - we're working with a variety of civil society actors in Syria with the goal here of strengthening freedom of expression."

      KaosAgent

      Apr 25, 2011 at 10:11am

      Mr. Dyer could perhaps explain why Israel "fears that a democratic government in Syria would be an even more implacable enemy of Israel" and hence why he thinks the USA fears that too. Clearly there is the possibility that if Assad falls, there could be serious infighting between the various minority groups, as there was/is in Iraq, but I don't see how that would affect the big Syria-Israel issues: the Golan Heights and Lebanon. Perhaps Assad is simply the "devil they know", whereas they can't say the same regarding possible successors?

      JMW

      Apr 27, 2011 at 12:05pm

      And of course, there's no guarantee that if Assad falls, what will replace him will be a democratic government. It might be a military dictatorship, or a theocratic thugocracy, or something else. But I do have to give him the benefit of the doubt a bit - it's tough to cover all the bases in 750 words.

      Jason

      Feb 9, 2012 at 5:00pm

      Even though I support diplomacy and peace efforts, sometimes I feel military intervention is necessary. The Western powers provided air support to their allies on the ground in Libya and it made a significiant impact I feel. I think the same thing should be done in Syria sooner rather than later and Israel and surrounding countries should provide a safe buffer for people fleeing their homes. The Arab League should also come up with a plan of military intervention that actually has teeth since Syria is Arab country. Whenever the West does anything they are blamed for imposing their will on a foreign country. Well we are waiting for the Arab and Muslim regimes to do something to protect their own people. When will they act.