Listen to BBC on Lebanon Crisis here.

Imad Mustapha, Syrian Ambassador to Washington, a Lebanese official, and Landis speak on the meaning of Washington's accusations that Syria is conspiring with Iran to illegally bring down the Lebanese government. Segment begins at 14:00 minutes into program.

Druze Police in Syria 1920 taken by Francis Kelsey on his Near East Expedition of 1919-1920

This is a continuation of the grand struggle by the US to take Lebanon out of Syria's sphere of influence and bring it into its own. This campaign was begun following the invasion of Iraq. Here is the press statement.

November 1, 2006

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY (of President Bush)

Support for a sovereign, democratic, and prosperous Lebanon is a key element of U.S. policy in the Middle East. We are therefore increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hizballah, and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically-elected government led by Prime Minister Siniora.

Any attempt to destabilize Lebanon 's democratically-elected government through such tactics as manufactured demonstrations and violence, or by physically threatening its leaders would, at the very least, be a clear violation of Lebanon ?s sovereignty and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701.  

There are indications that one goal of the Syrian plan is to prevent the current Lebanese government from approving the statute for an international tribunal that would try those accused of involvement in former Prime Minister Hariri's assassination. Any such effort to sid eli ne the tribunal will fail, however, for the international community can proceed with establishing it no matter what happens internally in Lebanon. The United Statesis committed to working with its international partners and the legitimate Government of Lebanon to ensure that the tribunal is quickly established and that all those responsible for the assassinations of Rafiq Hariri and other Lebanese patriots since 2005 are brought to justice.

If Hezbollah, along with Berri and Aoun, take to the streets, they can create havoc in Lebanon. They are numerically more powerful than the March 14 Coalition.

This would lead to violent confrontations between the security personnel, run by acting Interior Minister Ahmad Fatfat (from the Hariri bloc). If security ends the demonstrations with force, it would create an even deeper grudge at the Lebanese government and it would be accused of using the security to clamp down on protesters something frowned upon in a democratic state such as Lebanon. If the security fails to end the demonstrations, it would be accused of facilitating chaos and vandalism.

Another option that the Berri-Nasrallah-Aoun coalition can use is to have Hezbollah's two ministers resign from the Siniora cabinet. They would be followed by the three ministers of Berri's Amal movement and Yaacoub Al Sarraf, the Minister of Environment who is an ally of Lahoud.

In all, six ministers, five being Shiite, likely would resign, forcing Siniora to dissolve his government and form another.

Defy orders

No Shiite heavyweight would join a new government, defying the orders of Nasrallah or Berri. Because of the number of parliamentary seats Amal and Hezbollah hold in parliament, no cabinet can or will be solved without them. Meaning, it would be all over for the Siniora cabinet because it cannot survive without Amal or Hezbollah.

A Hezbollah deputy, Mohammad Raad, hinted at this plan by telling the Kuwaiti daily Al Raid Al Aam that the party's presence in the cabinet was "temporary". All of this is a warning to Siniora that the days to come will not be smooth in Beirut.

Being the balancing power in Lebanon since the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri and the withdrawal of Syrian troops in April 2005, Berri has now taken sides.

And when Berri takes sides, things change in Lebanon.  

Washington is dramatizing the crisis, with accusations that Berri and Aoun's efforts to push for a unity government are somehow illegal. It is true that both Syria and Iran will be thrilled to see the dilution of the Hariri bloc's power, just as they are undoubtedly working behind the scene's to ensure the continued success of Hizbullah and pro-Syrian allies in Lebanon. So far, however, Washington has not been able to prove illegal activity – not with the smuggling of arms, not with assassinations, not with promotion of violent demonstrations. That does not mean these activities are not going on or being planned.This is undoubtedly a high stakes game with the Lebanese government sitting in the balance.

Has Washington used illegal means to change the balance of power in Lebanon?

Washington and other Western Hariri allies have not been sitting on their hands any more than Syria and Iran have been. Both are struggling to influence events in Lebanon.

In fact the US and Israel have made much more intrusive inroads into Lebanese politics recently than Syria has. The 34 day air and land invasion by Israel, which the US supported, was an effort to kill leading Lebanese officials and party members and sway the balance of power in Lebanon back into Washington's and Hariri's favor. Shaykh Nasrallah, Lebanon's most popular political leader according to opinion polls, is still in hiding because Israel continues to hunt him for assassination.

Do Lebanese think Washington will win?

Many Lebanese believe that their country should not be used as the battle ground for Washington's struggle with Syria. The Lebanese government is too weak to act as the battering ram to bring down the Syrian regime. Many argue that over-freighting the fragile government with such a policy will lead to strife between Lebanon's clashing religious communities. They believe that Washington must come to terms with Syria, rather than try to topple its government. Only with the type of agreement between Beirut, Damascus – and yes, also Washington – that existed during the 1990s can Lebanon flourish. The Lebanese of the middle way argue that the Egyptians must be given room to work out common ground between all sides. Only such a deal, they insist, will ensure that Lebanon wins, rather than falls victim to great power struggles as it did during the dark days of the civil war.

Europe Abandons Washington Policy of Regime-Change for Damascus

Another reason that Washington is blowing the alarm and calling the Lebanese to battle stations, is that its European allies are beginning to abandon Bush's policy of confrontation with Syria.

Lahoud trying to assassinate international tribunal

In its October 31 edition, Al Mustaqbal reported that:

“Emile Lahoud stepped forward to sabotage the formation of a tribunal of an international character and assassinate it whether by claiming that his constitutional prerogatives, in accordance with article 52 of the constitution, entitled him to negotiate and ratify ‘international treaties’ – to which Justice Minister Charles Rizk responded by saying that ratifying them was part of the prerogatives of two thirds of the Cabinet – or by trying to start a crisis with the UN by publishing two highly confidential drafts of appendixes, which is what Minister Rizk also feared.

“However, what was clear was that by waging war against the formation of the international tribunal, Lahoud established a tight link between the demands of ‘the Syrian alliance’ to overthrow the government on one hand, and the hindering of the international tribunal on the other.

The head of the Democratic Gathering, MP Walid Jumblatt… said that ‘the interference attempts conducted by Emile Lahoud were sufficient evidence of his involvement’. He said that: ‘If someone tried to oppose [the formation] of this international tribunal, it means that this person is trying to cover up the crime’.

“He added that: ‘If Lahoud and Syria’s allies do not want this international tribunal, the issue will become very serious’… As for Samir Geagea, the head of the Lebanese Forces executive committee, he stated to Al Mustaqbal that: ‘The international tribunal law is not an international treaty. A treaty is between two states and the UN does not sign treaties with anyone. The international tribunal is the result of a UN resolution which was issued at the request of the Lebanese government… The UN resolution to establish it was issued and that is it’.

The Syrian-American Rift
Haaretz
By Akiva Eldar

As the U.S. congressional elections approach, thousands of party activists are shuttling between synagogues and Evangelical churches, competing with their pro-Israel declarations to garner votes and money. But as of next Tuesday, the rules of the political game in Washington will change: In come the political advisers seeking to rescue Client Number One from the Iraqi vale of tears. James Baker, Bush Sr.'s secretary of state, is expected to present Bush Jr. with a plan detailing an escape from the quagmire.

Edward Djerejian, who heads the James Baker Institute for Public Policy and is involved in drafting the plan, has said in private conversations that the document will recommend Bush lift the boycott on Syria and advance Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Djerejian, who was American ambassador to both Syria and Israel, has maintained close relations with the regime in Damascus. He wrote in the last issue of Foreign Affairs: "Syria poses both a danger and an opportunity. The [Bashar] Assad regime could undermine security arrangements in southern Lebanon, hinder progress in Iraq and continue to support Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and radicals in Hamas. But it could also play a constructive role in the region – a possibility that has yet to be fully explored. The Bush administration's engagement with the Syrians from 2003 to 2005 left both sides frustrated. Washington felt that Damascus offered too little too late, and Damascus felt that Washington constantly increased its demands and refused to be satisfied.

"Since Syria facilitates Hezbollah's access to arms and money, any sustainable solution in southern Lebanon would require Syria to be on board. Given Syria's historically special relationship with Lebanon, Damascus would not countenance a separate deal between Beirut and Jerusalem, and so the Israeli-Lebanese and the Israeli-Syrian negotiating tracks will have to proceed in parallel."

Another person who does not support America's anti-Assad policy is Djerejian's boss, Baker. And according to the Sunday New York Times, these two retirees have quite a few partners in the White House and the State Department. Among those allegedly advocating direct negotiations between Israel and Syria are two senior advisers: J.D. Crouch, the hawkish deputy national security advisor, and David Welch, the assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs. Welch was an active partner in formulating UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war in Lebanon this summer.

Exactly 15 years ago today, President George H.W. Bush accepted Baker's recommendation and sat Yitzhak Shamir down with Hafez Assad's delegation to the Madrid conference, following the first Gulf war. Now it is up to Baker and Crouch to convince his son that appeasing Syria could save the remnants of his honor. They believe reopening the American-Syrian-Israeli political track might stop terrorists from passing from Syria into Iraq, where they operate against American troops, as well as arms from passing from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria. The supporters of reforming policy toward Syria say using the stick merely pushes Syria into the arms of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, to say nothing of extremist anti-American elements in Iraq.

The new voices in Washington have not gone unnoticed by Assad. In response, he has given conciliatory interviews to the international media and promised western emissaries that he would open a public diplomacy campaign. The Syrian leader is waiting for the U.S. president to clarify that so long as he, Bush, is in power, there is no significance to the declaration by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that, so long as he, Olmert, is in power, the Golan Heights will remain part of Israel. Only if Bush accepts his advisers' recommendation to open the diplomatic channel and risk – as his father did – a confrontation with the Israeli government and its friends in the Jewish establishment and the Christian Right – as happened in 1992 – will it be possible to know what Assad would do to get back the Golan Heights. Would he send Khaled Meshal to find a new refuge? Would his line be busy when Hassan Nasrallah calls to find out why the container carrying Katyushas from Tehran is stuck in Syrian customs?

Sami Moubayed has two new articles well worth reading: 

Iraq's bloody destiny compares the supercharged politics of Qasim's regime following the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy in 1958 with Malaki's government today. It is interesting for the history.

Christian Damascus is a sympathetic treatment of the fears of Syria's Christians. Their anxiety runs high these days as they give succor to the thousands of Iraqi Christians who are fleeing persecution and lawlessness and as they watch their own government in competition with Islamists, whether allies such as Hizbullah or enemies such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
 

Ibrahim Hamidi gets the scoop again. He reports in al-Hayat that a high level envoy of Tony Blair — Nigel Sheinwald, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser — visited Damascus unannounced yesterday and met with President Asad and Syria's Foreign Minister. This is the first time in two years that such a high level British visit has been made to Damascus and signifies that one more European finger has been taken out of the dike built up to isolate Syria. The Spanish Foreign Minister is due back to Damascus in a few days.

Peter Ford, Britain's Ambassador to Syria is leaving and just met Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmad Arnous on Sunday for his official going away ceremony. The two expressed their "keenness to have relations between their two countries improve." I guess they must have been chortling over that one.

John Jenkins will be replacing Ford as Ambassador in December. He is presently serving as HM Consul General in Jerusalem. By all accounts he will make an excellent replacement and should have an easier time of it than his predecessor if Anglo-Syrian relations continue to improve.

Ambassador Bolton has gone on the rampage again, accusing Syria of trying to destabilize Lebanon's democratically elected government by smuggling arms into Lebanon. AP has the story.

France's Ambassador to the UN Jean-Marc de La Sabliere isn't buying Bolton's barrage. He said "we don't have at this stage evidence" of violations.

Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told reporters his country was fully complying with the arms embargo and all U.N. resolutions. The Lebanese defense and foreign ministers and a Lebanese intelligence chief had denied reports of Syrian violations, he told Al-Arabiya television.

The opinion of a high level Saudi official 

A friend conveyed the following assessment of a high level Saudi official. The official is very pessimistic re Syria and the Americans and Israel. Suffice to say, he believes the Americans want to squeeze the Syrian regime till there's regime change – using upcoming report on Hariri for starters – and won't allow the Israelis to talk to Syria. Khaddam and the NSF are seen by Americans as potential alternatives to regime, he says. He says he can't believe how stupid Americans have been in the region.  

The new issue of Mideast Monitor is available
THE MIDEAST WAR

Hezbollah and the Political Ecology of Postwar Lebanon by Gary C. Gambill
Hezbollah's conflict with is Israel is fueled substantially by local political conditions in Lebanon.  

Implications of the Israel-Hezbollah War
The outcome of the recent Israel-Hezbollah war may prove to be a stable equilibrium. Gary C. Gambill 

Briefing: Lebanese Public Opinion 

SYRIA Divided They Stand: The Syrian Opposition
Tony Badran
Syrian President Bashar Assad's efforts to exploit ethnic, sectarian, and ideological divisions within the opposition have failed to obstruct its growing unity.  

The Islamic Revival in Syria
Sami Moubayed
In response to growing Islamist militancy in Syria, the Assad regime has incrementally abandoned the ruling Baath Party's longstanding secularizing mission and encouraged the growth of Islamist civil society loyal to the state.  

Syrian-Saudi Media Wars
Tony BadranTensions between Riyadh and Damascus have led to a lopsided war of words in the media.      

Dossier: Bushra Assad
M. Daoud
Assad's older sister shuns the spotlight, but her political influence has been decisive at times.

The following news item about corruption in Syria will stand next to Makhlouf's Syriatel scandal. Muhammad Hamsho is an old friend of Bashar's. He was, and may still be the Apple Macintosh agent in Syria, which is probably how he became Bashar's friend. They used to go jet skiing together on the Latakia coast during the days that Bashar al-Asad was better known as Mr. Computer. Hamsho's wife is a muhajiba and he comes from a Sunni family, but he has already been arrested and released for shady dealings, despite the fact that he is a deputy in parliament. According to Ammar Abdulhamid, his businesses are known to act as a front for the President's Brother, Maher, who will probably be the real person behind the new "private" TV station. La plus ca change….

Syrian Corruption Hits Prime Time

Damascus, 30 Oct. (AKI) – Syria's Information Minister Muhsin Bilal has ordered the closure of the country's only private TV station barely eight months after it first went on air. The Sham statellite channel broadcasting programmes – made up of Arab soap operas – from a free trade zone in Damascus shut down on Monday. According to government sources Bilal's order was communicated "verbally" to the station owner, Syrian parliamentarian Muhammad Akram al-Jundi, and to its director Maamun al-Bunni.

No reason was given for the government's demand, the sources said.

Despite broadcasting since its launch on what it said was an experimental basis, Sham had become the fifth most popular Arab TV channel in Syria.

According to some Syrian newsreports the station's demise can be attributed to moves by a Syrian entrepreneur Muhammad Hamsho to launch his own television station, Dunia. Hamsho who is close to President Bashar al Assad's government will now be able to attract advertising which previously went to Sham, the reporst said.

For those who subscribe to Syria Comment in order to have it sent to their email inbox, do not forget to switch subscription services. Follow the simple 1-2-3 directions here. It takes two seconds.

(Click on photo to enlarge) I was sent this photo by Alex via a pro-Jeajea list-serve. The Lebanese do have a sense of humor. After reading news items like the one above, such photos seem particularly mordant. Or following news items like the one below.

Razan Zaiytoune, who produces "Shril" sent out this note on Michel Kilo's trial today. Le Monde article also writes about his trial today, for those who read French (thanks to Eric Brunner-Williams)

Lawyer Khalil Matoq announced to SHRIL that the cases of Michel Kilo, Mahmoud Issa, Suleiman al-Shomar, and Khalil Hussein were referred today – 30 October 2006 – to the 2cn criminal court in Damascus. The first hearing court will be tomorrow to interrogate them in front of the court, Despite the appealing of the decision of the refer judge "qadi al-ihala".

Lawyer Matoq stated that this action controvenes the law and criminal trial procedure and that the criminal court should not put its hand on this case now and should wait until the final judgment from the supreme court.

On the other hand, the 2nd refer judge in Damascus ratified today the decision of the investigation judge of the prisoner Anwar al-Bunni, and  referred the case to the criminal court. 

Farid Ghadry claims Syrians are rushing to convert to Shia Islam.  — Iran has "significantly expanded its influence in Syria," he claims, by "encouraging Alawis and Sunnis to convert to Shi'ite Islam."

Syrians have been observing over the last year a dangerous phenomena mostly witnessed by an alarming number of non-Shia turning to Khomeini-style Shia in return for financial rewards," the opposition Reform Party of Syria said. "Whole villages and urban areas are adopting the Hizbullah model whereby clinics, schools, and social services are provided by Iran in return for Syrians to convert to Shi'ism." The regime of President Bashar Assad has given Iran "carte blanche" in Syria.

Comment: I cannot help but interject here. At Brookings a week ago, I was asked about the conversion stories. I said that I do not believe that they have any basis in fact. The one small village in the Jazira to convert to Shi’a Islam did so over 6 years ago, before the Iraq invasion and before the Lebanon War. We still do not know why. I am sure a number of Syrians visited Shiite mosques out of respect for Hizbullah's effort this summer, but I seriously doubt many have "converted." Anyway, it is technically incorrect to talk of conversion, because there is no official ritual for changing denominations in Islam. If a Sunni wishes to embrace Shiism, he simply goes to the Shiite Mosque, where one prays slightly differently. Turning from Shia to Sunni Islam is similar to a Protestant who switches from one church to another – or, for that matter, a Catholic who wished to become a Protestant. They are all Christians; one does not have to get re-baptized to switch churches. It is not a matter of conversion, merely of switching denominations. The ease of switching from a Sunni to a Shiite mosque does not belie the fact that socially the switch would not be easy at all.

The following quote is from an Haaretz editorial Sunday:

Between D.C. and Damascus

It makes sense to respond in a positive tone to Assad's peace signals while putting out quiet feelers through indirect channels from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, to determine his intent. Israel must take U.S. military and political considerations and Washington's requirements of Syria, into consideration in any fruitful process that develops between Jerusalem and Damascus.

Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov expressed conviction that peace in the middle East cannot be established without Syria, calling for ending the occupation of the Syrian Golan to achieves this peace.

In a lecture he delivered Sunday evening at al-Assad Public Library in Damascus, Mr. Primakov said it is necessary that peace should be comprehensive and Israel has to accept to return the occupied Syrian Golan. However, he asserted, Israel was not ready for such peace.

The former Russian Premier called for a just and comprehensive settlement in the region as military power had proved failure to achieve anything.

Mr. Primakov praised the deep, insight vision of President Bashar al-Assad and His Excellency's practical stances vis-à-vis the peace as a continuity to the approach adopted by the great late President Hafez al-Assad who Primakov described as one of the greatest politicians in the region and the world in the 20th century.

The former Russian Premier saw that uni-polarity  in the world would not last long as the world is on its way towards multiplicity and it is not acceptable any more that the US decides the fate of the world.

Mr. Primakov said Israel failed in its latest war on Lebanon whether in destroying Hezbullah party or inciting a national sedition against the  party.

Jim Lobe once again has the best article summing up how "Bush Is Under Growing Pressure to Engage Syria" October 28, 2006. He maintains that the hawks centered in the National Security Council, particularly Elliot Abrams, and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, notably his national security adviser, John Hannah, and Middle East specialist, David Wurmser, have enough clout to fight back the growing tide of heavy-weights in the administration who want to engage Syria. They are the crowd that has been most adamant about bringing regime-change to Syria. The silent treatment that Syria is getting from the Bush administration is designed to keep the regime-change option open. The moment dialogue begins with Syria, the train will have left the station and the regime-change crowd will have to wave their hankies and wipe the tears from their eyes, as they watch Syria's Baathist regime ride out of the station into a future that will be brighter for it.

This small handful of hawks would not have the muscle to hold back the growing number of officials recommending engagement if President Bush were not four square behind them. Bush gave a long and rambling press conference to a handful of conservative journalists this Wednesday in which he made it clear that he believes America is winning in Iraq and can stay the course. Dan Fromkin in the Washington Post does an excellent job of explaining "Why Bush Thinks We're Winning," in which he parses the president's words.

So how does the NSC and Defense Department think they are going to further isolate Bashar al-Asad and bring down his regime?

Muslim Brotherhood:
One method is to open a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood and ex-Vice President Khaddam who combined forces a year ago to form the National Salvation Front or NSF. The Levant Institute in London, which is connected to the Muslim Brothers, has announced that Michael Doran of the National Security Council (He was hired by Elliott Abrams) "met with members of the National Salvation Front on Thursday October 26 and discussed possibilities of meeting with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the future."

Farid Ghadry in his most recent circulars has been rather upset by this news. He is  no longer the preferred Syrian opposition member. Last week, Ghadry sent around a circular claiming that Ammar Abdulhamid was opening an office in Washington for the NSF. Ammar and the Brookings Institute, where Ammar is a non-resident fellow, denied it.

Nevertheless, Ammar explained on Monday Oct. 23 to the audience at the Brookings Institute that although he is in no way officially connected to the NSF office that will be opened, he will be assisting the NSF in making contact with administration figures, which he has done in facilitating the meeting with Doran. The NSF is opening an office in Washington and will be doing the same in European capitals. If Washington is interested in democracy, it will have to turn to the Muslim Brotherhood, the most respected and deep-rooted Islamist party in Syria and throughout the Middle East.

Even if the Bush administration is merely interested in regime-change, it will have to turn to the MB if it hopes to have any chance of success. Even then, the Brotherhood is weak. Although it can tap into the broad and growing current of Islamist thought in Syria, the MB was destroyed institutionally by the regime during the crackdown that followed the Hama uprising of 1982. It has never really rebuilt itself within Syria, where belonging to the Party is punishable by death.

The Saudis are also reaching out to the NSF and Khaddam. UPI reported on Oct. 20 that the Saudi monarch and crown prince met Tuesday with Khaddam. UPI's source, who refused to elaborate on Khaddam's meeting in Saudi Arabia, said King Abdullah will hold a similar meeting with Rifaat Assad, Syrian President Bashar Assad's uncle who has been living in exile for several years after being evicted by the late President Hafez Assad in the late 1980s following a coup attempt.

Kurds
Another option the Bush administration is most likely pursuing is the training of Syrian Kurds in Iraq in military tactics and the art of subversion. I have no knowledge if US forces are training Syrian Kurds in Iraq. I do, however, have good information that the US is training Iranian Kurds to act as a cat's paw for US policy in Iran, which leads me to suspect that the same is being done with Syrian Kurds. 

Asad Regime is Strong
Regime-change in Syria seems like an extremely remote possibility. Bashar al-Asad's regime is much stronger than the hawks in Washington believe. They are listening to Khaddam, who claims that the regime is on its last legs. WINEP's Robert Satloff has been arguing the same thing, claiming that "The Syrian regime is profoundly fragile." Of course this is not true. Interestingly, Denis Ross, Satloff's (boss?) at WINEP, contradicts Rob. He claims that "It's pretty clear to me that the regime is not on its last legs."

Satloff has gotten some of his best intelligence on Syria from Ammar Abdulhamid. He has frequently quoted Ammar's powerful quip several years ago questioning whether Bashar is Fredo or Michael Corleone – after the two brothers in the God Father film. Of course they always answer their own question by insisting that Bashar is Fredo. This got them lots of laughs a few years ago.

The only problem is…… bada da boom

Fredo seems to have taken up residence in the White House !^&*%$@

I used that line at Brookings on Monday as I sat next to Ammar. It got a few laughs from the hawkish crowd. It was a calculated risk. After all, one doesn't want to look disloyal or outrageously radical, but the point must be made that Bashar is looking increasingly prescient on a number of issues compared to Bush.

Several years ago, the pundits were saying that Asad just didn't get it and that he didn't realize how "9-11 had changed everything." But 9-11 didn't change everything. Bashar was right about Iraq, right about Hamas, and right about Hizbullah. He bet on the winner in each of these issues. Bush bet on losers: in Iraq he bet on pro-American secular forces winning and standing up democracy; in Palestine, he bet on the PLO over Hamas; in Lebanon, he bet on disarming Hizbullah.

Satloff still claims that "Assad’s record is dismal." and that Bashar “achieved a stunning degree of incompetence,” based on his opposition to America's invasion of Iraq and failure to understand America's commitment to the war on terror. I would argue that Bashar got both of these about right. He has survived to see both Bush policies become mired in the merde. Satloff is still shocked that Bashar could have "declared [that] Arab friendship with the United States was “more fatal than its hostility.”

Syria Frightened of Democracy, Cling to Authoritarianism
Bashar owes what popularity he has in Syria and throughout the region to his anti-American stand.  In the Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer explains in her article: "In Syria, Iraq's Fate Silences Rights Activists," how Syria's pro-democracy advocates have been silenced and marginalized by Washington's failure in Iraq. Syrians are clinging to their authoritarian leader like a ship-wrecked crew clings to driftwood. They are not eager to experiment with democracy and end up like the Iraqis. Knickmeyer writes:

"Since Iraq's descent into sectarian and ethnic war — and after Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, even Syrian activists concede that the country's feeble rights movement is moribund. Advocates of democracy are equated now with supporters of America, even "traitors," said Maan Abdul Salam, 36, a Damascus publisher who has coordinated conferences on women's rights and similar topics.

Omar Amiralay, a movie maker and critic of the regime, is quoted saying,

"I think that people at the end said, 'Well, it is better to keep this government. We know them, and we don't want to go to this civil war, and to live this apocalyptic image of change, with civil war and sectarianism and blood.' "

If one needs anymore proof of the desperation of Iraqis in Syria, one only need read the excellent articles by Hugh Macleod on the latest wave of young Iraqi women to "fall prey to sex traffickers" in the Guardian. Of course Syrians witnessed some 200,000 Lebanese refugees come into their country this summer to help usher in what Condoleezza Rice described as America's effort to assist in the birth pangs of a new Middle East. That was an example of US democracy promotion at its most exiting. But it is the Iraq example that really gives democracy a bad name.

Ron Redmond, UNHCR chief spokesman, according to an IRIN news report, said some 40,000 Iraqis are now arriving in Syria each month. The condition of the 700,000 Iraqis already in Syria is deteriorating rapidly as they run out of money. They cannot hold work permits although they can send their kids to school in Syria and gain access to health care. The UNHCR says their budget for Iraqis has been slashed since 2003 because the country is supposed to be "liberated." In Syria the UNHCR office is funded with less than one dollar for each refugee a year.

Europe Wants Dialogue with Syria
A British parliamentarian, Richard Spring, the Conservative MP for West Suffolk, argues forcefully why Syria is not Iran and why "We must work with Syria to secure peace in the Middle East – only this can break the deadlock," he writes. Britain's conservatives are positioning themselves behind dialogue with Syria.

The European Union is asking for new incentives to Syria for peace. A report adopted by the European Parliament included this line: "Parliament requests the Council to consider additional incentives and benefits for Syria, going beyond those granted through the association agreement … to encourage Syria to review its current foreign policy …"

New Issue of Foreign Affairs on Syria-Lebanon
Even if President Bush doesn't get that his Middle East policy is in a shambles, the rest of the foreign policy crowd does. Richard Haass has an excellent lead article, "The New Middle East," in Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006. He argues that America's moment in the Middle East is over. Growing Islamism in the region and chaos in Iraq are undermining US authority.

Summary:  The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.

Volker Perthes, "The Syrian Solution," in the same issue is also excellent. A year ago, Perthes was predicting the end of the regime. Now he argues that Western powers must engage the Asad regime – a testament to how things have changed in a year.

Summary:  Damascus did not commission Hezbollah's raid into Israel, but it did see the ensuing crisis as a chance to prove its importance. Western powers should realize that Syria is ready to be part of a regional solution — as long as its own interests are recognized.

Paul Salem's article on "The Future of Lebanon" is also important, as is Edward P. Djerejian's calling for a lasting and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement.

Whose eyes are these? Hint: She lived 4,500 years ago in Syria and was burried with 27 complete donkeys.

"Forbidding" an oppinion piece from Oct. 22 Asharq al-Awsat, translated by mideastwire.com

 On October 22, Diana Muqlid wrote in the Saudi-owned daily Asharq Al Awsat: "The Syrian authorities forbade the Damascus Declaration's Follow-up and Coordination Committee to hold a press conference on the first anniversary of the launch of that famous declaration, which was written by Syrian academicians and politicians who are opposed to the regime to call for radical democratic changes in Syria. The ban was implemented according to the familiar intelligence method: the Jamal al-Atasi Club for Democratic Dialogue, where the meeting was supposed to be held, was surrounded, the Discipline Preservation Police members spread out, all outlets leading to the place were closed, and the people in charge of the conference were told that it was forbidden. Perhaps the only good thing was that nobody was beaten, jailed or killed, as has happened in many previous accidents in Syria. The harm, in addition to the ban, was limited to some damage done to th! e car of Suhayr al-Atasi, the club's Administration Council chairman.

"This seems familiar in the course of Syrian official treatment of any opposition or of the voices that argue with the Syrian Ba'th regime over its policies inside and outside Syria. Muzzling the mouths of opponents or would-be opponents is a constant and old procedure carried out by the "forbidding" state. But the state itself does not mind releasing a lot of fabricated and false news against personalities, politicians and countries through official newspapers, platforms and websites for which writers of reports who are famous for their loyalty to the regime and for the adoption of "forbidding" are asked to write. "Forbidding" here has become a commonplace and exaggeratedly public expression that means steadfastness in the face of Israel and the West. In order not to lead people into the confusion that is intended by some people, we must say that criticizing Syria surely does not harmonize with what the USA and its allies want, or with the genius of President George Bush, w! hich aims at aggravating the crises and kindling divisions in the region.

"In a report by the Journalists' Protection Committee on the 10 countries with most censorship of the press and media, both Libya and Syria were mentioned, while Iraq, of course, remained at the top of the list of countries that are most dangerous for journalists. This categorization does not exempt the miserable conditions of press and information in other Arab countries, but it gives precedence to the worst over the worse. Between killing journalists in Iraq and arresting their colleagues in Syria, there is a clear line of the harmony of terrorism with "modernism" in the Ba'thist way. Both sides despise people of opinion and knowledge, and both hate being criticized for being an evil that should be fought. The hostility of the "forbidders" to the press and to culture has become an identity more than a current stand, for when freedom is seen as a Western colonial product, forbidding is required in order to perfect the characteristics of nationality and this bu! ries any dis! agreement and disparages any questioning.

"We can also direct no less severe criticism against the USA, but the difference may be summed up by the state of the great US journalist Bob Woodward, who exposed a series of scandals in the USA, including Watergate. He recently wrote a book entitled "A State of Denial" in which he exposes Bush's era and the war on Iraq, accusing the US administration of lying in regard to the US casualties there. Woodward is still at his home, and his books and articles continue to be published in great newspapers and to shake the fortress of the Republican administration, while, in the "forbidding" countries, the likes of Woodward are put in prison." – Asharq Al Awsat, United Kingdom

SyriaComment.com has a new and improved email delivery service provided by Feedburner.com. If you would like to subscribe to the new email delivery service, just click on this link to subscribe to SyriaComment.com via email. The old email service does not look good with the new blog format, as readers have let me know. Everything runs together and lots of html code gets spit up as jibberish. 

If you are already subscribed to the old email delivery service, you will want to un-subscribe from that service in order to not receive duplicate emails. To un-subscribe from the previous email delivery service, just click on this link to un-subscribe from the old SyriaComment.com email service.

The recent series of interviews with Syrian President Bashar Asad in Arab and Western media reveals the extent of changes in the Middle East, in general, and Syria, in particular, in the wake of the confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah in the summer of 2006.  Before that conflict, Asad hardly ever mentioned “Israeli aggression against Syria that can end in war” or the “state of alert” in the Syrian army, but since then, Asad has repeatedly stressed the readiness of his military forces.

The latest confrontation, whatever the assessment may be of its tactical aspects, is seen by many in the Arab and Muslim world as Israel’s worst strategic failure since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.  Israel’s inability to destroy Hizbullah’s organizational and physical infrastructure has only strengthened the belief of many that Israel is a weak entity that can be shaken to its very foundations through violence and terror.  The perception that the summer war ended in a victory for Hizbullah has led the Alawite regime in Damascus to tighten its links with the “victor” and even to signal a readiness to adopt Hizbullah’s operational methods and policies.

Assad’s latest declarations reflect his (and his regime’s) growing self-confidence.  From his perspective, Syria is now in a “win-win” situation; every development will play to its advantage.  A glance through the Syrian prism at three possible scenarios shows how might all be expected to develop positively:

1. initiation of negotiations for a comprehensive Syrian-Israeli peace agreement – Since Assad sees himself as someone who “bet” on the right cards (closer ties with Iran and support for Hizbullah) and won the strategic contest with Israel, he can go into negotiations with maximal demands: total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, “dipping his feet” in the Sea of Galilee, and major Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue.  Extracting these gains from a weakened Israel unwilling to risk a clash with Syria would allow the Syrian President to depict himself as one who refused to make concessions in a political process and, consequently, did not harm his regime’s legitimacy or do damage to collective Arab dignity;
2. launching a “popular struggle” to regain the Golan – If negotiations do not begin (or begin but break off in failure), Syria might resort to a limited violent struggle.  In an interview with Dubai Television on 23 August, Asad explicitly declared: “The limits of our patience will be shown soon and I have already said that the present generation is the last generation prepared to accept the peace process.  Therefore, our patience will run out with this generation.  That means that [when patience runs out] the people will turn to resistance, which is a popular and not governmental path.”  Even if that “resistance” is not so “popular” and is actually institutionalized and subject to the absolute control of the Syrian security agencies, such a struggle would attract support, not only in the Arab and Muslim arenas – because it would be a struggle to restore conquered land and protect Arab honor in the long run — but also in the international arena – because the Golan is seen as Israeli-occupied territory.  Such a confrontation would also tie Israel’s hands.  On the one hand, it would lack the international legitimacy to launch a full-scale military attack on Syria.  On the other hand, at least in the eyes of the Syrian regime, Israel would suffer from the same inefficiencies and weaknesses against a guerrilla force that it experienced in Lebanon.
3. a major Israeli war against Syria – Since Asad sees Israel’s power to threaten as having been eroded by the results of the campaign against Hizbullah, he may suspect Israel of wanting to rehabilitate its reputation by launching a major military action against Syria.  The Syrian ruler judges that his army is prepared for such an eventuality and makes frequent declarations about Syrian readiness.  Blocking an Israeli military initiative would enhance the regime’s legitimacy, bring honor to Syria and further discredit Israel’s deterrent; yet another military setback might well bring Israel to acquiesce in Syrian demands and permit the regime to achieve all its goals in negotiations.  But even if the Syrian army were unable to inflict a defeat on Israel, Asad apparently assumes that the survival of his regime would not be threatened because he would still be portrayed as someone who stood up to “Zionist aggression.”

Regime survival is the highest value in Syrian national security policy and that prompts Asad and those working under him to do everything to strengthen their legitimacy.  In the eyes of the regime, strengthening ties with the Hizbullah-Iran axis has already borne fruit in this regard and all that remains now is to pick the fruit, whether by political or military means.

Given the Arab and Muslim perception of Israeli failure in Lebanon, Syria is now trying to launch a policy that will change the status quo vis-à-vis Israel.  The regime would prefer to bring about that change by negotiating from the position of strength that it believes it now holds in light of Israel’s defeat.  But if negotiations do not take place or, alternatively, if they fail because of Israeli refusal to satisfy Syrian demands, that could bring the regime to adopt Hizbullah’s methods and shatter the quiet that has prevailed along the Syrian-Israeli line of separation for more than three decades.

Michel Kilo, Syria's leading secular opposition spokesman and activist, will not be released from jail. This is what I am told by a reliable source. There must be a battle over his release within the Syria regime.Michel Kilo has been the leader of the Syrian opposition's drive to unify its ranks and become an effective political vehicle over the last two years. After Rafiq al-Hariri's murder he led the effort to get the "Damascus Declaration" written and approved by the many factions of the opposition. It was the instrument that brought together the Muslim Brotherhood and secular groups for the first time. He traveled to Morocco to meet the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Bayanuni and get his approval for the text of the agreement. He shopped it around to the many opposition groups, many of whom reworked sections of it. In the end, although many Syrian leaders had shaped the document and played important roles in making sure it was agreed upon, Michel Kilo was the master of ceremonies. It was his vision, patience, and skill in accommodating all that brought it together.I am not sure if his role in putting together the Beirut-Damascus Declaration was as central, but I suspect it was. It was following the appearance of this document that Kilo and 9 other signers were arrested last May. Eight of the original 10 of those arrested have been freed, but Kilo and Anwar al-Bunni, Syria's leading human rights activist, remain imprisoned.

Now that Syria has come through the Lebanon War unscathed, it would seem that Kilo and Bunni could be released by the regime, as a gesture of regal beneficence following victory. After all, the March 14 crowd in Lebanon has been discredited in Syria by the war. It is no longer a threat to the Syrian regime, having been weakened by the United States, its primary benefactor. When Syrians saw Washington turn against the Siniora government and Hariri bloc by helping Israel destroy the advances the Hariri team had made in Lebanon over the last decade, they lost their desire to emulate the March 14 strategy of relying of Washington. Washington proved once again that it is not a reliable partner for Arabs. Because of this, Michel Kilo should be freed; if for no other reason than the Syrian opposition has been weakened by this summer's war. President Asad should be gracious in victory.

On Friday, it was announced that Kilo's release was being postponed due to some silly reason, but this seems to be an indication of greater troubles.