Michael Young of Lebanon’s Daily Star has been gauging the mood in Washington, and wonders if Assad’s regime is on the way out:
As the leftovers of Syria’s order in Lebanon struggle to salvage some power by manipulating and delaying an election that, if it were fair, would surely obliterate most of them, one wonders whether their sponsors in Damascus are long for this world. More importantly, how is Syria’s fate perceived in Washington, where it may well be written in the coming months?
The mood in the Bush administration is that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad is not viable, perhaps even in the medium term, and that talk of gradual “reform” along the lines of what Assad and his acolytes have been trying to peddle abroad in the past four years is ridiculous in the current context. Worse for Assad, there seems little American fear that once he leaves or is made to leave office, Syria would be dominated by Islamists. […]
At the National Security Council (NSC), meanwhile, a top official insists that while relations between Lebanon and Syria may be “special” by virtue of the countries’ being neighbors, “it shouldn’t be a colonial relationship. There will be friction with Syria if it doesn’t respect this.” Asked whether the Syrian regime is on life support, he avoided a direct answer, but accepted that the U.S., like most Arab regimes, thought “Syria was not maneuvering very well.” He also said, with a hint of derision, that “pressure on Syria has not been very great; it can be greater,” implying that Assad had perhaps caved in by so quickly withdrawing from Lebanon. […]
And what of Hizbullah? The NSC official insists he is “worried” with the party, but also argues it “has its own interests, separate from Iran and Syria.” He thinks there must be a “realistic timeframe” for Hizbullah’s disarmament, and suggests the way to do this is to reinforce the Lebanese Army, which could fill the gap left by the party. “The new [Lebanese] government should tell us what the army needs.”
As for Syria’s using its links with Hizbullah to destabilize Lebanon, but also engaging in other efforts to provoke chaos once its soldiers pull out of the country, the senior NSC policymaker put it this way: “We have told Syria you are responsible for violence in Lebanon. If Syria wants to escalate the violence, it will be another Syrian mistake.” This phrase was echoed in the lapidary opening question posed by a senior Pentagon official known as a hard-liner on the Middle East to two Lebanese visitors: “What mistake will Assad make next?”
One mistake he is already making is stalling the Lebanese electoral process on the grounds that this will allow Syria to limit the wreckage of its Lebanon interregnum. The simplistic assumption is that the longer elections are delayed, the more the opposition will fray and the better the pro-Syrians will be able to protect themselves and stage a comeback. The only problem is that it will be much more difficult for Assad to sustain collaboration once Syrian soldiers and intelligence agents are gone. Gradually, the political class, which will include present Syrian allies, may see fewer and fewer advantage in deferring to Damascus.
Would this be so surprising? After all what does Syria offer its local friends except subservience? After 29 years, the Syrian regime, which we must reportedly thank for having robbed Lebanon blind, assassinated its leaders, bombed it cities and killed many thousands of its civilians, leaves a legacy no one cares to resurrect. Even the politicians who seconded Syria in its endeavors must realize that they finally have an opportunity to break free.
More on Lebanon here, including Michael J. Totten bravely venturing into the southern suburbs of Beirut, where Hezbollah run their own terrorist state-within-a-state.
Leave a Reply