DAMASCUS, SYRIA – People wave guns in the air, as they gather to celebrate the fall of the Syrian … [+]
Assad’s departure from power unleashed tumultuous scenes of joy and horror: celebrations at being freed from a blood-soaked tyranny and acute sadness at glimpses of his cruel gulags. Over 50 years of Assad dynastic rule, father and son, came to an end with all the suffering that attended it. What was it all for – all the torture and disappearances, the summary executions, the chemical weapons and dead infants? Ended in a day. Unquestionably a historic one, to be honored and commemorated. But is the suffering over? Because in the minds of most observers nagged the question – what now? Can all the factions live in harmony? What about the jihadist elements? And the necessary reckoning that must certainly follow as the populace demands justice against Assadists? And, of course, the geostrategic jockeying among the neighboring states and beyond. So this column is about the future of Syria, with no apologies for not savoring the moment sufficiently – because we have seen this before with Iraq and Libya, and the precedents are bleak.
Let me first say that, over the decades, I have reported from the ground in all the countries concerned: Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and the Russosphere. The following cogitations, therefore, are not totally uninformed noisy opining. In its November 12 edition, this column posited the scenario of a budding Trump-era deal where Russia gets what it wants in Ukraine and Israel gets Iran. The US stops supporting Ukraine and Russia stops supporting Iran. That is to say, a ceasefire in Ukraine where Russia keeps the occupied territories for now in exchange for Israel getting the green light to neutralize the Iran threat by attacking the Mullah regime inside and outside the country.
Central to this deal is the distinct entente between Putin and Bibi. Israelis know this well. Here is a thread discussing it. Meanwhile, we’ve all noted that, since the Trump election, Zelensky has been openly airing the possibility of a ceasefire, a controversial position to say the least, made palatable by the offer of a putative Nato membership for Ukraine. That’s the bare outline. It looks rickety since Putin is unlikely to accept the Nato part and equally unlikely to honor any deal going forward. Nevertheless, the underlying spectre of such a deal can be seen everywhere.
Take the events in Syria. It IS odd that the Russians put up so little resistance as the rebels powered forward to Aleppo and beyond. Half-hearted Iranian attempts to intervene to help Assad with Iraqi militias were quashed by American air power. Equally, Iran’s attempts to resupply Assad with weapons were stopped by the Israeli air force. The cold hard truth? It certainly looked like Assad’s allies, both Moscow and Tehran, made little effort to help him. One can ascribe this to the abovementioned quid pro quo. But why is Iran not fighting back more stiffly, considering the next step in the deal is Bibi Netanyahu bombing their nuclear installations and ports? The answer must be that Tehran knew Moscow would cave, that Syria could not hold up without Russian backing, however much the Shiite proxies tried. Assad was undefendable. After all, Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon had stopped the flow of armed support for Assad from that quarter. So, it seems, Iran chose to concede Syria to Israeli power as a Sop to Cerberus. “Here, you can have Syria but please leave our regime unmolested.”
Those are the positives, so to speak. Before we get to the unpleasant future negatives for Syria, some background. President-elect Trump has openly declared that the US should not get involved in ‘that situation’. Let them sort it out themselves. Here’s what he means: previous American Presidents prevented Israel from bombing Iran but he will not. What about Turkey’s Erdogan? Very publicly, he offered Assad a summit meeting. He was ignored. The rebel attack started. Back in 2011 something similar happened. The Saudis invited Syria to repudiate Iran and rejoin the Arab bloc. For a year Assad dithered, then said no. The Arab Spring started in Syria. Russia and Iran came to his aid and he stayed in power. This time they abandoned him. But this is where the negatives begin for Syria’s future stability. Right now, Erdogan is riding high with his neo-Ottoman success in Syria. He should worry about what’s coming down the line.
The likelihood is that the Russians and Assad left behind spoiler plans to destabilize Syria and alienate the world against the new coalition regime. None of the axis powers want Syria to suddenly succeed because they’ve left. The justification for all that torture and horror was ‘stability’. Otherwise, all the factions would kill each other and the Sunnis would repress everyone else. They need that to happen. So, expect provocations, false-flag outrages, high-profile kidnappings of westerners and much else. This is exactly what happened in Chechnya to justify Putin flattening Grozny. It’s also what Assad did to destabilize Iraq by harboring jihadis in his jails and releasing them en masse. Also, after the Syrian uprising got going, he planted his own provocateurs (pretend jihadis) in the rebel areas who kidnapped journalists and western aid workers. The headlines rolled in.
In the internet age, this will begin with women posting about being forced to wear hijabs and generally being mistreated. Nobody can double-check such social media complaints. One faction will apparently attack another. Mosques and churches will be torched anonymously. The inevitable reaction by the new government will be to crack down, tighten security, chase down left-over Assadists busy causing provocations and the like. Coalitions are vulnerable to just such tactics. In response, the government will have to impose tight central control. Pretty soon, the internet will hum with voices regretting Assad’s departure and calling for the return of Russian/Iranian protection.
