As a number of readers have suggested, I have asked T_desco a number of times to bring together his summaries and publish them on the front page. I logged him in over a year ago with full rights to publish when he wants.

I think he needs readers’ prodding. His reports are excellent, as everyone says. They do get lost in the comment section. It would be great if he would weave together his analysis of the Brammertz report, which is much better than anything I have seen in the news. Analysts in capitals around the world would find it very useful.

I fully agree with MSK, ALex and Josh.

T_desco,

You need to put your ideas on a more prominent location. whether its on your own blog or on Syricomment (or both) it doesn’t matter. Just get it out there so people other than us comment section junkies can read it.

As for the interview, I think the president’s arguments were quiet convincing. Though I expected to see more specific questions regarding the situation in Lebanon at the moment.

“I think the president’s arguments were quiet convincing.”

Good. Then you can make peace with the Syrian head thug.

If the good doctor wants peace, have him stop supporting terrorists. Using his own words:

“you have nothing to lose”;)

And what can Olmert lose? How about strategically high land? How about water resources? I wish I could have responded to Alix’s softball questions.

I found remarkable that Ahmad Chalabi and what’s his name Jaafari the other PM visited Syria. Today, there was the Iraqi interior minister.

The other day on Al Jazeera, Harith Al Dari said “Syria is the first country in supporting the resistance”. This seems to agree with my own analysis that Syria is quite close to the insurgents (some of them).

I think allready improving relations with Iraq will open the Iraqi market to Syrians and that would be a great thing.

He is learning fast but the foundation of the regime remain fragile. One thing in his favor is the chaos next door: if this is american democracy then many Syrians would rather have this autocratic state with its stability. In the long run security cannot bring eternal stability without change.

I have read several postings the decry the onslaught of American hegemony in the Middle East. While I do not wish to belittle the obscene violence visited on the Lebanese this summer, it seems to me today the threat of Iranian hegemony is far greater to the region than any inroads being laid by America. The specter of Islamic fundamentalism is a core issue in the sectarian conflict in Iraq and elsewhere, where the violence continues to spiral out of control.

Assad can say Iran and Syria do not want chaos in the region, but who can you blame for all the infighting in the Arab speaking world today? The same conflict that raged in Algeria continues today in Iraq and Lebanon. How can the US and Israel be responsible for all of this?

All this talk about Syria helping America is 90% largesse. It is the Arab League that needs to sit down and figure out how to settle its differences peacefully. I think it is good that Iraq and Syria are talking at high levels. And maybe the US can be of assistance. But if Syria wants to work with the US then perhaps it needs to evaluate how close they wish to stand with Iran.

Asad said he is willing to have peace with Israel and there are shared interests with the US. Is Hizballah going to label him as a traitor? If anyone from the March 14 have said what Asad said HA and its March allies will be screaming “a traitor!”

Reading Assad interview is a waste of time. Misinformation is cornerstone of the Syrian regime defense strategy. There is nothing true in any of his statements. The Syrian regime wanted peace for the last 25 years. All other Arab countries directly involved in the Arab Israeli conflict agreed to some form of peaceful settlement with Israel. Why Assad wants us to believe that his quest for peace is now genuine. We all know, the American administration knows, Baker knows that all what Assad want is to keep the status quo. He does not want peace he does not want war.
Assad wants us to believe that he wants a stable Lebanon. Why on earth this country did not enjoy a moment of stability since the Syrian soldiers set camps their. For thirty years, the Syrian regime controlled every aspect of the political, social and economical live of the Lebanon and still no stability. We all know and history proves it that stability of Lebanon is not on the task to do list of Assad. We all know that the stability of Iraq is not one of his priorities. We all know that democracy, political freedom and economic prosperity of the Syrian people are not on his agenda.
All what I have said earlier is common knowledge and because of that no one wants to engage Syria. Ask Clinton about engaging Syria.
It is urgent for the President Assad and it is critical for the survival of his regime to know that we know that he did not mean a word of what he said in the interview. The demagogic approach and tactics are obsolete.

This interview with Assad is full fluff, repetitions and contradictions. I am not going to go into details, it is not worth it. Essentially, if he can help out in bringing peace into Iraq, and stability to Lebanon as he claims, what is he waiting for? My feeling is that he has been for long time a large contributor to the problem and the solution he is proposing is growing beyond him daily. this regime has been proven to be full of thugs and its end will definitely come – I hope soon – for the sake of the Syrian people.

My favourite quote in the interview:

“Our policy is based on the will of the people. That is why we are very strong.”

Even the most ardent supporters of the President must admit that this is stretching it a bit.

How do the people exactly convey their will and what institutions act as the conduit for this exchange of ideas?

Ehsani,

It is true what they say about you … you rarely (since I never, I mean, rarely use the word “never”) find anything positive to say!

🙂

I’ll try to help you change that negative habit. For a change, tell us if you liked the direction Bashar and Walid took in these two interviews, by directly challenging the Israelis to start peace talks. What would you have advised them if you were asked?

And did you notice how Alix hinted that the economy looks like it is not terrible at least.

Ye lets cheer for Bashar!

““Our policy is based on the will of the people. That is why we are very strong.”

Yes it was the peoples will that helped change the constitution lowering the age so Bashar can be president!

No Mr president your rule is not based on the will of the people far from it, your rule is based on an archaic emrgency law that has not changed in over 40 years. Furthermore your people are suppressed, and if they speak out like KILO or Bunni you send them to one of your humanitarian prisons!

I for one will not be fooled to see the regime for what it is! I pity the people!

It’s good that you defend Asad regime في 25 يوليو أصدرت محكمة أمن الدولة العليا بدمشق الحكم على كل من “هيثم قطيش” بالسجن أربع سنوات، والممثل “مهند قطيش” بالسجن ثلاث سنوات، والصحفي “يحيي الآوس” سنتين بعد احتجاز دام نحو عامين، وكانت سلطات الأمن السورية قد اتهمت واحتجزت ، كل من الأخوين هيثم و مهند قطيش والصحفي يحيى الأوس بتهم “الحصول على معلومات يجب أن تبقى مكتومة حرصا على سلامة الدولة لمنفعة دولة أجنبية” و “إذاعة أخبار كاذبة في الخارج” بواسطة شبكة الإنترنت ، وذلك منذ عام 2002 حين قُبض عليهم بسبب إرسال مقالات إلى جريدة إلكترونية في الإمارات العربية المتحدة، حسبما ورد، وقد أُسندت إلى كل من مهند قطايش ويحي الأوس تهمة “الحصول على معلومات، يجب أن تظل سرية حفاظاً على أمن الدولة، لمصلحة دولة أجنبية”، كما وُجهت إلى هيثم ومهند قطايش تهمة “التحريض للحصول على معلومات، يجب أن تبقى سرية حفاظاً على أمن الدولة، لمصلحة دولة أجنبية”. واتُهم هيثم قطايش بنشر كتابات دون موافقة الحكومة من شأنها أن تعرض سوريا والسوريين إلى خطر أعمال عدائية تلحق الضرر بعلاقات سوريا بدولة أجنبية”، ووُجهت إلى يحي الأوس ومهند قطيش تهمة “نشر أخبار كاذبة في الخارج”.
the rest of the article is on
الشبكة العربية لمعلومات حقوق الإنسان

It defies reason and common sense to seek to reward such a failed and fragile regime as the current Syrian regime in the name of advocating real politics. The whole crux of this real politics advocacy is to legitimize the illegitimate regime of Mr. Assad. The regime’s modus operandi is clear to everyone who can see: Continue to create trouble spots in neighboring states hoping to gain attention from the US with the aim of striking some kind of deal.
Assad seems to overlook the very basic fact that chaos in the region will eventually engulf the same country which is creating and supporting the chaos – his own. Being in such a dilemma, Assad will eventually become the victim of his own mis-designs. On the other hand chaos may in the end produce the democratic Middle East once the present order collapses, thus proving the accuracy of the vision of the current US administration. It is a matter of survival to the despots of the region (Assad/Ahmedinejad) to abandon their current strategy of destabilization. So why should they be rewarded for anything they do to ensure their survival? Why should anyone even contemplate talking to such failed duo of despots? They probably believe time is on their side! They’re wrong.

Gibran,
When I read “chaos may in the end produce the democratic Middle East once the present order collapses,” I am thinking, this must be the words of a neo-neocon. The strategy of wholesale regime change by destruction of the state and undermining existing economic and social structures is a circuitous route to democracy. The Iraqi constitution and elections were made possible only where the US occupation maintained some credibility. Without some sort of stability all hell will break loose. It seems unlikely that Lebanon’s democracy will survive the strain of the recent destruction of so much of its infrastructure and the bitterness of so much loss of life.
Damascus is a kleptocracy, and the Syrians and their neighbors all deserve better. But simply destroying the Assad regime does not lead to something better. A cycle of violence has no basement; warfare does not naturally arrive at a point of equilibrium at which point progress will automatically proceed. The US bombed Cambodia to root out the Communists and this led to the Khmer Rouge. You believe Syria can do no worse than Assad? Iraqis used to believe they could do no worse than Saddam Hussein; then they met Paul Bremer.

We should all I think congratulate Professor Landis for presenting us with such two wonderful postings: highly informative and interesting, in terms of Syrian policy both domestically and regionally. As per the specifics of Assad fils, statements: without appearing too clever by half, I must say, that his comments merely repeat what I myself said yesterday in the comments section of this online journal, id est, about the fact that Damascus will never willingly give up the alliance with Teheran. It might, conceivably balance it with ties to Rihyad, the EU and the USA, if there is ever a settlement which gives the Golan back to Syria. But, his defence of Persia shows clearly that for reasons of raison d’etat, the current regime in Syria is never going to cut loose from Teheran, come what may.

His comments about the regime’s domestic strength, and popularity, also show (as I maintained yesterday) that if the regime regains the Golan, it is much, much less likely to pursue a path of reform and Democratization, than otherwise. His thinking clearly shows that his
underlining thinking is: ‘we have managed to
outlast and in fact triumph over the Americans and their regional allies, why should we reform, and, why do we need reforms, if that is the case?’ Again, as I mentioned yesterday, historically speaking it is regimes who are weakened by defeats (diplomatically or militarily) which tend to choose the path of reform (from above). Regimes which are strong and or victorious abroad, tend not to. Afterall, war is in many ways the most visible ‘test match’, of states: those who lose, tend to either undergo a path of reform, or undergo some type of upheveal; those who win tend not too. Pur et simple.

One final thought, notwithstanding the attempts in the interview to try to separate the EU from
the USA, today’s Beirut Daily Star has a lead story from Brussels, in which the EU Heads of Governments collectively accuse both Damascus and Teheran of attempting to ‘destablilize’ the Near East, and warns Syria directly that unless it ‘stops interfering’ with the Lebanon, it will be unable to end its diplomatic isolation. Something which by the bye, I also noted recently, contrary to Professor Landis own longstanding surmise that the EU is ready to pursue a diplomatic line independent of Washington. As per what occurred in Brussels today, that is very much not the case. I have enclosed for Syriacomment.com readers the story in full:

EU accuses Iran, Syria of destablizing Middle East

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 16, 2006

The European Union accused Iran and Syria on Friday of destabilizing the Middle East, telling Damascus “to stop interfering in Lebanon” if it wanted normal relations with the international community. Significantly hardening the bloc’s tone, EU leaders said “Syria must end all interference in Lebanese internal affairs and actively engage in the stabilization of Lebanon and the region.”

In a statement at the end of their two-day summit in Brussels, they also charged that Iran was harming security in the region with its nuclear program and threats toward Israel.

“The European Council expresses its concern about the negative impact of Iranian policies on stability and security in the Middle East.”

EU leaders also warned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his policies – including his dismissal of the Holocaust and anti-Israeli diatribes – have a “negative impact” on stability in the region.

“Iran needs to play a responsible role in the region,” the leaders said in their statement.

The EU declaration on Iran reflected disillusion after three years of fruitless talks between Europe’s three leading powers – Britain, France and Germany – and Iran on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Ahmadinejad, who has stirred an outcry by referring to the killing of 6 million Jews in World War II as a “myth,” told a Tehran conference questioning the Holocaust that Israel’s days were numbered.

In remarks to the summit distributed to journalists, French President Jacques Chirac condemned what he called “a destabilization offensive” against the elected government of Lebanese Premier Fouad Siniora.

Hizbullah, backed by Syria and Iran, and other pro-Syrian opposition groups, have staged mass demonstrations to try to topple Siniora’s Western-backed government.

The EU urged Israel to stop violations of Lebanese airspace with overflights that have created tension with the mainly European UN peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon.

It demanded Syria recognize and cooperate with a special tribunal for Lebanon, created to try those responsible for the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last year.

Hariri was a close friend of Chirac. His killing sparked mass protests that forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon under UN pressure.

France pressed ahead Friday with plans for an international donor conference next month on rebuilding Lebanon despite political turmoil in the country.

“More than ever, Lebanon needs our help,” Chirac said at the summit, adding the conference would be held on January 25 in Paris.

Chirac told reporters Friday that the 25 EU nations stand united in their support of “the democratic institutions in Lebanon and, as a result, in support of Siniora’s democratically elected government.”

“Our security and our prosperity depend also on the stability in this troubled region,” he said. “We cannot appear divided or inactive as a spiral of uncontrolled violence looms.”

Chirac noted Arab League mediators’ success this week in getting the Lebanese government and opposition to agree on a national unity government.

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said today’s political crisis “is not the most favorable context in which to hold this conference. We are doing everything so that it can take place on the scheduled date.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

EU leaders also condemned the killing last month of anti-Syrian Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, and decried any other attempts to “destabilize Lebanon through political assassinations or terrorist acts.”

Also Friday, the EU extended by three months an aid deal for the Palestinians that bypasses the Hamas-led government that took office earlier this year.

Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel has meant diplomatic and economic isolation from the international community and triggered a financial crisis for the Palestinians.

EU leaders said “the protracted deterioration” of the Palestinian situation justified continuing the World Bank-monitored aid scheme that has funneled hundreds of millions of euros directly to Palestinians.

This came as Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview published Friday that the US and Europe must talk to Syria and Iran if they want a comprehensive solution to Iraq and other Middle East conflicts.

Assad told Rome’s La Repubblica newspaper Damascus was ready to cooperate with Washington to resolve regional issues and challenged Israel to open up to Syria.

The Syrian president sought to downplay Syria’s backing of Hizbullah in Lebanon, saying that his country holds influence on the Shiite group, but doesn’t interfere in Lebanese affairs.

“Don’t you see that Hizbullah is backed by a large part of the Lebanese population? It is wrong to portray it as a Syrian or Iranian puppet. Hizbullah has its own interests, its own vision. They trust us, so we can influence them,” he was quoted as saying in the interview.” We never lost our influence in Lebanon. But it is not interference.”

Asked if he was ready to work constructively with Washington, he said: “Certainly we are ready to do so. Because if you don’t resolve regional questions – Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – it will be we bordering countries that will pay the highest price.”

Syria had “excellent relations” with many factions in Iraq and could support a national conference on the future of the country, he said.

Assad added that the Uni-ted States and Europe “must talk to Tehran.”

US President George W. Bush is under strong pressure to accept the recommendation of a bipartisan Iraq Study Group to talk to Tehran and Damascus in a bid to stabilize Iraq and help extricate US forces.

Assad said the ISG report vindicated Syria’s position that it had to be listened to.

The Syrian president added that Israel should also take up Syria’s offer to hold talks. “I say to Olmert: ‘Take a chance. Discover if we are bluffing or not.'”

But despite his call for dialogue, Assad also said Syria is preparing for the possibility of a war with the Jewish state, since he claimed Syria expects Israel to launch a war against it” at any moment,” according to the interview.

“War is always possible in our region. It is natural to prepare [or it],” he was quoted as telling the newspaper.

Asked about this week’s conference sponsored by Iran questioning the Holocaust, Assad said: “Listen, Europe has a complex about the Holocaust. We don’t because we didn’t do it.” –
in http://www.dailystar.com.lb.

John,
You seem to have missed the whole point. Assad seeks to be rewarded for something he is willfully doing that may lead to his own destruction. Whether the ensuing chaos may bring democracy or not is beside the point. In fact chaos is not necessarily a sure outcome of his demise. Syrians may still come up with quite few good leaders without having to go through the pain. It is only Assad and his supporters who put forward the chaos theory in order to emphasize the misconception of the lack of alternatives. Assad’s game is played in the name of so called real politics which is in fact pseudo real. He is operating with the mentality of 1980/90 era politics. He cannot adapt to a world that has drastically changed since then. Thus, his meddling in Iraq is inspired by Hafez’s perceived successes in Lebanon in 1984 when the US marines abandoned Beirut as a result of the well known bombing of their compound. Assad the son is seeking to emulate Assad the father but in a different arena – Iraq. He will not succeed. His gambit is too exposed to be repeated in Iraq. Assad the son is too weak to fight a war and lacks the political skills to play the regional power broker he is so desperate to reclaim after his numerous defeats and humiliations. In short the son is wearing a shoe that is too big to his feet. The US could easily ignore his presence and he will whither to political wilderness by the simple fact of the rampant corruption that surrounds him.

John Kilian stated:

“The same conflict that raged in Algeria continues today in Iraq and Lebanon. How can the US and Israel be responsible for all of this?”

John,

First rule of fundamentalist, terror supporting dogma is: The US and the Zionists are ALWAYS at fault. Ask Ivanka.

The rest of your post is right on the money.

Nizar Al Ahmar said:

“It is urgent for the President Assad and it is critical for the survival of his regime to know that we know that he did not mean a word of what he said in the interview.”

It is also critical for the survival of his regime continued conflict with his neighbors. Without the external conflict, the Assad legacy collapses. Good points.

Tarek says:

“this regime has been proven to be full of thugs and its end will definitely come – I hope soon – for the sake of the Syrian people.”

Inshallah!

Gibran said:

“On the other hand chaos may in the end produce the democratic Middle East once the present order collapses, thus proving the accuracy of the vision of the current US administration. It is a matter of survival to the despots of the region (Assad/Ahmedinejad) to abandon their current strategy of destabilization. So why should they be rewarded for anything they do to ensure their survival? Why should anyone even contemplate talking to such failed duo of despots? They probably believe time is on their side! They’re wrong.”

What’s going on? Everyone is agreeing with me! Professor Josh, MSK, are you listening???

John Kilian replied:

“But simply destroying the Assad regime does not lead to something better. A cycle of violence has no basement; warfare does not naturally arrive at a point of equilibrium at which point progress will automatically proceed. The US bombed Cambodia to root out the Communists and this led to the Khmer Rouge. You believe Syria can do no worse than Assad? Iraqis used to believe they could do no worse than Saddam Hussein; then they met Paul Bremer.”

Here’s where we part company. Comparing Paul Bremer to Saddam Hussein is rather poor example. I know many are tempted to blame the US, but those blowing themselves up everyday aren’t Americans.

Unfortunately, democracies cannot be created overnight. The US democracy is now 230 years old and survived a civil war where over 600,000 souls perished. Take that as an example.

Dear Charles G. Coutinho, Ph. D.,

I hope you don’t believe everything you’ve posted.

Charles,
Thanks for the Daily Star article and for your analysis over the last week, which I must say I agree with.

Many of Asad’s financial reforms of the last several years were hastened and driven along by the tremendous pressure placed on the Syrian economy by the West, and particularly the US. Switching to the Euro, hastening private banks as a means to circumvent sanctions on the central bank, and preparing to float government bonds have all been excellerated by the need to safeguard Syria from sanctions and to show the Syrian people that Syria could escape the US threat despite defying US pressure. Once the pressure eases, so will the urgency of reform.

But I also suspect the President has other reasons to continue economic reform, which he has spoken of consistently since assuming office. He is eager to remain popular. Once the West is not threatening him and bolstering his legitimacy by the simple fact that he can safeguard Syria’s stablility and security, he will have to produce in other ways. Syrians want economic reform and more wealth. Political reform is not on Asad’s agenda.

As for Europe’s present hard line on Lebanon, what else can it do at this juncture? Lebanon faces the threat of breakdown. George Bush is preparing to ask Europe for backing for one last push to get Iraq right, and Europe has no answers of its own to the terrible condition of the Middle East. It finds itself hostage to Bush’s agenda. What is more, France owns the Syria-Lebanon question in the EU and cannot abandon Siniora at this delicate juncture. The rest of Europe must follow unless they want to wrestle the Syria-Lebanon portfolio away from France, and who would want that hot potato?

All the same, I don’t suspect that many Europeans are optimistic about Bush’s plans or abilities to carry through. They will permit him to play out his hand in Iraq and Lebanon. Bush must be promising them some action on Palestine. What do they have to lose? It is Bush’s nickel.

They will wait until the US public cannot sustain the expense or disappointment of Iraq, which will come soon enough, then they will push the US again to change course in the Middle East.

The many visits of European foreign ministers to Damascus over the last several weeks were an attempt to sound out Asad and push the debate toward engagement, but President Bush has stuck to his guns, fought back the wave of pressure, and insisted it is no time to change course. What is more, the Gemayyel assassination and Ahmedinejad holocaust conference make it very hard for any country to insist this is the time to engage. But they will be counting the months if things do not improve in Lebanon or Iraq.

If Lebanon should crumble under the opposition’s pressure, or, what is more likely, if there is no resolution to the present crisis and the political situation remains paralyzed for several more months and Iraq continues to deteriorate in the absence of a political deal between Sunnis and Shiites, then what will Europe do? They will have to make the best of a bad situation, which will mean creeping back toward Damascus and looking for new solutions. The US will have to do the same.

Europe cannot be seen to stab the US in the back at this point. It will wait for the Democrats and congress to wear down the President before resuming the effort to engage. In the absence of a unified foreign policy, Europe remains condemned to follow the US.

I suspect that President Bush has only four or so more months to produce some results in the Middle East. After that it won’t be only the European wheels that fly off his foreign polic chariot.

Professor Josh –

Thanks for the info on Syrian economic reform. It sounds so exciting! I bet pretty soon all the labels in American department stores will say, “Made in Syria”!

Regarding the American pressure on the Great Syrian Leader, it is amazing to me young Bashar can take this abuse. He’s such a nice guy, and he really only cares about all this reform and Syrian security. He knows, like everyone else, that if something were to happen to him, the rest of Syria would suffer, and we can’t have that.

As we know, all the funneling of weapons to the Hezbollah “resistance” and the murder of those Lebanese opposed to Syria is in the best interest of a strong Lebanon. It’s so encouraging!

Meanwhile Donald isn’t so optimistic. I wonder what troubles him…

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/16224448.htm

Dear Professor Landis,

Thanks for the lovely compliments! You are probably correct as per both Europe and American policy vis`a-vis Syria, with one caveat: to wit that for Bush et. al., the Lebanese question is not per se important, is is merely a symbol. Two years ago, it was a positive symbol, the first (really the only) fruits of the Iraq project. Now, that positive result is in danger of being overthrown. Or at the very least rendered moot. But, the point here is that for Bush, Rice, et cetera, what happened in the Lebanon, was meant to be one part a harbinger of what the Iraq project was about, to the region as a whole, and one part, PR success (‘Cedar Revolution!’ Prague=1989, Beirut=2005).

If the Cedar Revolution is reversed, than that is one more debit on the whole Iraq project. Which pretty much everyone in much of the USA, and much of Official Washington (of which you know and are much more personally familiar with than any of us), thinks is a disaster at this point. Consequently, the Lebanon, recedes into importance. Will the USA attempt to keep the status quo ante in Beirut? Yes. Will it attempt to forcefully do so? No. Right now, which is the endgame of the whole Iraq mission, the Lebanon is merely (I think I have used this expression before, but it fits perfectly), a ‘sideshow’ in the Shawcross sense of the word. Think Indochina circa 1971.

So, if the Siniora government collapses, the USA will huff and puff, but, that will not result in a meaningful change of American policy. Both towards Syria or Persia. Much less Iraq. As for
Bush himself: I truly think (again I could be absolutely wrong about this) that he is truly the last of the Mohicans, and, will not give in to reality on either Iraq or Syria, until forced to by overwhelming pressure. The only question is when that will be? My own guess for what it is worth, is when Senator McCain, who is just returning from Iraq, and, who still believes in a military victory, changes sides, and comes out for a policy of withdrawal, and, negotiations with Syria and Teheran, then and only then, will Bush capitulate to reality. Again, I could be wrong, and, the endgame as you say could be much shorter, say four or five months. Hopefully for the people of the region, it will be sooner rather than later.

Akbar Palace,

Thanks for linking Donald’s interview.

to me, this is the most significant part:

CT: You’ve read the Iraq Study Group report.

DR: I haven’t. I’ve read reports of it and gone through the executive summary

They do not want to listen, and if they were forced to listen, they ignore what they just heard … They only listen to “stay the course”.. which is becoming the American version of our favorite Baath Slogan… only more dangerous to world peace.

You have Baker, Carter, Brizinski, Djerdjian, and others (including Bush Sr probably) warning that the war will eventually cost 2 trillion dollars, and that it can not be won…

But after teh presidetn talks to Baker .. some random Neocon advisor calls … he decodes whatever Baker just said in a way that always reinforces in the president’s mind the beauty of “stay the course” … and at the end of the day … selective retention erases Baker’s words, and we go back to “stay the course”…. one more day, 100 more dead Iraqis.

What’s the alternative for the proud President from Texas? accepting that he made a huge mistake that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? And that fixing this mistake requires among other things calling that tall and arrogant “I told you so” president of that small country?

Nope … it is easier to “stay the course”

Which leads me to Bashar’s freindly tone (or, President Assad’s friendly tone… according to Alix). And the similar tone Walid Moualem used… they are trying to make it easy for the American president to talk to them. They will insist on their “We told you so”, but I’m happy with the endless repetitions of the “we want to make peace with Israel, and we want to help the US in Iraq” … for those of you who ever designed commercial orpolitical ad campaings (anyone here?) .. you know that when you need to change opinions (especially long held opinions) repetition is needed … lots of repetition.

One more question for Professor Landis or anyone else on this site, who has an interest: ‘what if anything will cause Damascus, to give up its current alliance with Teheran?’ Will Assad give up the ties that have built up since the early 1980’s, if he gets back the Golan, and, is given something approaching a carte blanche in the Lebanon, by the Western Powers? Or, are there both internal as well as external reasons for Assad to perhaps modulate, but, not really cut loose from his alliance with Persia? I myself, can see him, trying to balance off, his alliance with Teheran with re-establishing good ties with the Sunni Arab bloc in the region. But, I truly doubt that he will ever reverse course, and, just drop Persia, even perhaps for the Golan.

But, what does the rest of the SyriaComment.com readership think?

Charles,

You used the right word “balance” … the Syrans (thanks To Hafez Assad) are paranoid about it… which saved them from endless challenges the past 36 years.

They will only do it if and when things change to the degree that make it “necessary”, and not only “possible” to cut ties with Iran.

One final one for the evening, rather late here in Manhattan Island: in Friday’s Washington Post, Rice issued a complete non possumus [no, no, no!], to the idea of talking with Syria and Persia over Iraq. She states that the “‘compensation’ required would be much too high”. And, that if they were self-interested in stabilizing Iraq, they would do so anyway. For les beaux yeux of Uncle Sam, as it were. And, that
far from the current situation in the area being
one of strategic failure and collapse for the USA, as per Rice:

“This is a time for pushing and consulting and pressing and seeing what we can do to take advantage of this new strategic context”.

Which means that I was wrong before, that Bush is not the last of the Mohicans: now there are two!
The interview is in http://www.washingtonpost.com.

Bon Nuit!

Are you saying for les beaux yeux of Uncle Sam? I’d say it is rather for les beux yeux of Bashar himself! As you may well know ‘real’ (read pseudo real) politics goes both ways. Assad may continue toying with destabilization until he burns himself and perhaps Syria with him. Real politics dictates the recognition that the US is part of the region by the mere fact of its direct presence in Iraq, not to mention its indirect presence in other places as well. Bashar will do himself a great favor to accept this very simple truth. His opposition to the Iraq invasion was rooted in his fear that he is next on the American agenda. What has changed since then to eliminate this fear? Basically nothing. The US is still in Iraq and the sword of Damocles is still hanging on his head. It is more so now than on the eve of the invasion. The US could very well play him out to the finish line in his game of self annihilation. Can you guess who will lose?

Gibran

US is in a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan… Do you really think they are a sword of Damocles to anyone?? US needs every single support they can get to get out of the Iraq mess… and Syria is one of the suport. They will have to swallow their pride and deal with Bashar, whether we like it or not..

Why_Discuss

Your presumption is based on wishful thinking. The US is on the border of Syria and not vice versa. The sword of Damocles is therefore still hanging on Bashar’s head since the eve of the invasion. It is Syria that should come to terms and recognize its inability to maneuver being surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors. The US can continue playing Bashar’s childish game until he withers into obscurity or overthrown. Are you aware of civil disturbances that took place in Aleppo and Qamishly recently (Dec. 10) and even earlier in October?

Assad: “We have influence in Lebanon, we never lost it. But that does not mean interferance. Our influence does not come from a relation with a super power. We get it from our history and our geography. It is a geopolitcal position. You see, Lebanon and Syria used to be one region, and this applies also to the surrounding region, including Iraq. We have the same families, same language, same tradition. As for the geographical ties, Lebanon is surrounded by Syria, the depth of Lebanon is Syria. But it is a two-way relationship: Lebanon also has influence in Syria because of its position and its social ties”.

I am not contending the accuracy of this statement, to the contrary, he’s absolutely right.
The region will always be intertwined as a result of the connections he mentioned above. Indeed, Assad realises his strategic, geographical position as the head of Damascus grants him great “natural” influences over other states, and thus highlights its importance as a regional player.

However, the main reason I have highlighted this comment is to demonstrate a possible insight into Syria’s policy in the region.

Is it really advocating a Greater Syria policy with such comments? Syrian nationalism as opposed to Arab nationalism in Bashar’s Syria? Perhaps not in the sense of annexing and forming one nation, but perhaps it aspires to be the chief of the other “petty” states who will always be tied to Damascus.

Does this also demonstrate a shift in internal power bases in Syria? Is the SSNP becoming more influential on Syrian policies, while Baathist pan-Arabism drowns out?
Assad’s above statement edges very acutely to the line of the SSNP.

Ehsani2,

I think President Bashar is right when he says this:

“Our policy is based on the will of the people. That is why we are very strong.”

Let me explain how: The approach of most Arab regimes towards their own peoples is populism. People feel very strongly about Palestine and about the US role in the region and especially in Iraq. What all these regimes are going to do is say “we support the Paletinian cause we are Arab nationalists, we are we are..” This is what the people want to hear.

When Bashar says this, he even appears credible because he himslef is threatened by the US. In fact the people, who fear the US and as many polls show are very anti-American, identify with this point of view.

Populism does make you popular. Bashar is very very popular right now. This is normal, he owns all the media and tells the people what they want to hear. He is even made more popular, and this intersects with your analysis in a post some time ago, by the fact that he represents stability and there is so much chaos going on.

it is great to analyse but let me tell you about the regime in Syria. Do not believe anything they say about democracy or modernızation. They lie and sort of go with the flow by words. But they rob their people of all their rights and play western diplomats and they can afford to because: leaders stay there forever.
1.While a western leader tries to get things done during their presidency Syrian leaders are not worried about time because they reelect themselves.
2. Most Syrians are cowards + ignorant and believe in “fate”. They care about getting married and earning money. Thats it! Syria will never change unless coward syrians make a serious move. SO there you have it! The US missed an opportunity and so did Israel in the last few years. Now Baathists are having champaigne and laughing their heads off at Westerners and at activist idiots like kilo who have no idea how the world powers work!
mahmood kussani

Hii and Salam
I’m a new member in this “free space” about my country ….I’m Syrian.
I interest to read all these rich information and discussion about what is going on in Syria. Although I’m Syrian, I have little idea or little understanding for what is going in this lovely country but this is normal for a Syrian guy.
I want to thank you all for this rich posts and discussions and I would like to join you in this form.