Email |  Print | RSS | Comment |  

 Email |  Print

Fri, July 22, 2011 | Rubin Reports | By Barry Rubin

People take part in a protest against President Bashar al-Assad in the tribal province of Deir al-Zor, eastern Syria, July 22, 2011. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets across Syria after Friday prayers, activists and witnesses say, in widening pro-democracy protests against a violent military crackdown to crush a four month uprising. (Reuters/Handout)

Syria: New Phase, How Long Will the Assad Regime Last?

The new line of discussion on Syria is not whether the regime of President (dictator) Bashar al-Assad will survive but how long it will be before it falls. Of course, no one can know for sure but Israeli assessments have turned around to predict the downfall of the Syrian regime.

Every day there are massive demonstrations throughout the country, despite the killing of peaceful protesters. There are now credible confirmations of large-scale defections from Syria’s army.

There are two main defenders of the regime left: the Iranian and U.S. governments. Tehran’s policy is understandable; the Obama Administration’s isn’t.

During its entire term, the Obama Administration has had a terrible policy on Syria, romancing the dictatorship in an absurd attempt to break it away from Iran. An equivalent would be if Iran made a high-priority attempt to break the United Kingdom or Canada away from their alliances with the United States and the Iranian media proclaimed this a brilliant idea.

Yet no matter what Assad does — support terrorists who kill Americans in Iraq; reconquers Lebanon; backs Hamas; issues some of the Arab world’s most virulent anti-Americanism; and even incites a mob to attack and invade the U.S. embassy; the administration takes it, further convincing the Syrian regime that it can treat America like a cowardly dog.

Why? The main two reasons are:

— The Obama Administration’s fear of friction, desire to conciliate enemies, antipathy to acting like a great power, passion for popularity, hyper-sensitivity to offending Arabs or Muslims, etc. In short, all the general problems of this administration.

— Specific foolishness regarding Syria, a conception that is totally out of touch with reality and is the product of such as Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but clueless about foreign policy.

My reading is that the administration has decided it wants to back the survival of Assad — I assume that this is the White House overriding the State Department — and then looks for excuses to justify this bad policy.

One of these includes claiming to worry that Syria might be taken over by Islamists. This would be q more persuasive argument if the administration weren’t ignoring this issue regarding every other country in the Middle East, including places where such worry is more justified. Another is lying (and I use the word deliberately) that Israel wants the United States to save Assad.

Another excuse is to claim that the United States is following the will of the Syrian people. But the Syrian people have expressed their views in a far higher number, far more geographically spread, and at much higher risk than those in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya. This rationale is also hypocrisy.

In the Arab world, where America is still regarded as a great power whose actions are important, the bizarre U.S. policy on Syria is provoking fear and ridicule. One day U.S. officials hint they are ready to get rid of Assad, the next that he is a reformer with whom the opposition should compromise. I believe it is accurate to say that Obama is now regarded as far worse than George W. Bush by Arab leaders and intellectuals who want to work with (and be protected by) America.

There are two truly bizarre things going on: the administration’s own behavior and the American mass media’s failing to ridicule it as the worst foreign policy in living memory.