Ousting Assad without a backup
plan By Ehsan Ahrari
There are reports in
the Western media that the inquiry of
special UN investigator Deltev Mehlis into the assassination
of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is nearing a
conclusion. Four actors, who are either interested
in it or will be affected by it, are driven by
varying and somewhat conflicting agendas.
The US is hoping to use the Mehlis report
to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. Lebanon
wants to use it to rehabilitate its national
sovereignty. The Arab states are worried about the
potential instability in Syria, which is next door
to Iraq, and about the erosion of another Arab
state that can pose even a semblance of challenge
to Israel. Israel, on the contrary, is
anticipating the
removal of a thorn
from its side. Then, it will only have to
concentrate on confronting Iran.
The
least-contemplated aspect of a potential regime
change in Syria might be the potential rise of
influence and potency of pan-jihadi forces in
Syria, if the Assad regime is ousted with the same
lack of regard to having a stable government
taking its place as happened at the time of the US
invasion of Iraq.
It is not Syria's
alleged involvement in Hariri's assassination that
is bothering the Bush administration. Rather, it
is Syria's role related to the rising tide of
insurgency in Iraq that is immeasurably
frustrating the US. America's stakes in Iraq are
appearing too grim, and Syria, more than Iran, is
getting the blame because the insurgency is
predominantly Sunni.
Even though Assad's
regime in Syria represents the rule of the Alawite
sect (which is Shi'ite), Syria is a predominantly
Sunni state. As such, the Sunni insurgents of Iraq
are reported to be finding considerable sympathy
in Syria. Since not much that happens inside its
borders escapes the attention of the Syrian
regime, the United States has a point in
concluding that the Assad regime has kept a
relaxed attitude toward the cross-border
activities of the Iraqi insurgents.
What
is still not clear is how the US would go about
removing Assad. First of all, clear enough
evidence has to come out of Mehlis' report. And
Mehlis is his own man. He is not likely to be
influenced or pressured by the US. What if the
report provides not even a semblance of
"indictment" of Assad's regime? What if only the
low-level officials were involved? Finally, how
credible are the Syrian "witnesses" or
"whistle-blowers" who are currently talking to
Mehlis and his team of investigators?
Regardless whether Mehlis' report blames
the Assad regime, there is little doubt that
Lebanon is a winner. Syria is already out of that
country. It will be a matter of time before its
sovereignty is reestablished there. And the
reasons for that development have a lot to do with
the current regional environment rather than just
the ouster of Syrian forces.
The presence
of American forces in Iraq has been making Syria
quite uncomfortable. Gone are the days when it
could stay put in Lebanon and drag its feet
indefinitely about getting out. Gone are the days
when the absence of Arab consensus about getting
Syria out of Lebanon served as their tacit
endorsement of its presence in Lebanon. Also gone
are the days when Lebanon did not matter much in
the larger Arab political picture.
The US
has been quite effective in making its opposition
felt about Syria's presence in Lebanon. Realizing
how effective that opposition has been, Washington
does not want to stop there. There is ample reason
to keep Syria on a short leash: Syria may not be
responsible for the assassination of Hariri but if
it can be proved that Assad's regime was involved,
then some way would have to be found for Assad's
removal.
Under the worse-case scenario
from the vantage point of Washington - that no
persuasive evidence can be found about the
involvement of anyone close to Assad in the Hariri
assassination - still ample pressure is likely to
be placed on the Syrian dictator to step down. The
Bush administration knows that under such a
scenario the objective of regime change in Syria
would be difficult to achieve, but it may still
carried out sooner or later. However, by
emphasizing the sovereignty of Lebanon, the US has
enhanced the significance of that country at the
expense of diminishing (or at least attempting to
diminish) that of Syria's. That is done on
purpose, even though Syria is important both as an
Arab state and as frontline state in the continued
Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Arab states are
watching with utmost concern what the Bush
administration is attempting to achieve. The
toppling of Saddam Hussein has removed one
important Arab state as a potential challenger of
Israel. Now it is Syria's turn. Syria's military
power is no match to that of Israel's. But there
was always the chance that Syria would remain a
respectable confrontational state vis-a-vis Israel
as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict remained
unresolved. That might be wishful thinking on the
part of Arab states; however, they have no
realistic opportunity of resolving that obdurate
conflict, especially in the post-September 11 era.
For Israel, its immediate neighborhood is
appearing less threatening. Saddam Hussein is
awaiting trial. Iraq has become a bloody mess,
with not a lick of hope that it would ever emerge
as a military challenge to the Jewish state. As
the Bush administration focuses its attention on a
possible regime change in Syria, Israel gets an
enormous sense of invincibility, not just on the
basis of its own considerable military power, but
also on the perceived weakened state of military
prowess of its neighbors. This is a reality that
may be changed for at least the next two decades.
But the Middle East as a region may not
remain rosy if Assad is toppled. There is nothing
pan-Jihadist forces of the Middle East wish at the
current time more than seeing a widened area of
chaos and turbulence. The more the powerful forces
of America, or even Israel, get involved in
establishing the Western (or as the Islamists
would call the Judeo-Christian) version of order,
the less their chances of success.
A safe
option from the perspectives of order and
stability would be that there is no regime change
in Syria. If that were to happen under unavoidable
circumstances, the UN and the international
community should remain in charge in securing and
stabilizing Syria. Iraq has proved how bloody the
battle can become in attempting to occupy it.
Syria is not likely to be any less bloody or
chaotic.
Ehsan Ahrari is an
independent strategic analyst based in Alexandria,
VA, US. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times
Online. He is also a regular contributor to the
Global Beat Syndicate. His website:
www.ehsanahrari.com.
(Copyright 2005
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
