If the likeness between ravaging regime-change scenarios in Iraq and Libya
is any indication, the future of Bashar al-Assad's sovereignty in Syria
might be hanging by a thin thread. The heart of the matter - underscores
this analyst - is that regime change in Syria is absolutely central to US
designs on the Middle East. The stakes are so intertwined that a host of
stragetic gains could be achieved in one fell swoop, not least shaving
Russia's and China's clout in the region. This is not an opportunity that
Washington would want to miss.
The visuals beamed from Tripoli last night had an eerie familiarity. Cars
blowing horns, Kalashnikovs firing into the air, youth and children
aimlessly wandering on streets littered with heaps of debris, western
cameramen eagerly lapping up the precious words in broken English by any
local fellow holding forth on the stirring ideals of the 1789 French
Revolution and the Magna Carta - the images are all- too-familiar. Somewhere
else, some other time, one had seen these images, but couldn't exactly place
them. Could they have stealthily crept up from the attic of the mind, a
slice of memory that was best forgotten or purged from the consciousness?
Now, the morning after, it is clear the television channels were only
replaying the scenes from Baghdad in 2003.
The narrative from Tripoli bears uncanny resemblance to Baghdad: A brutal,
megalomaniacal dictator, who seemed omnipotent, gets overthrown by the
people, and a wave of euphoria sweeps over an exhausted land. As the
celebrations erupt, the western benefactor-cum- liberator walks on to the
centre stage, duly taking stance on the 'right side of history'. In the 19th
century, he would have said in Kenya or India that he was carrying the
'white man's burden'. Now he claims he is bringing western enlightenment to
people who are demanding it.
But it is a matter of time before the narrative withers away and chilling
realities take hold. In Iraq, we have seen how a nation that was tiptoeing
toward the OECD standards of development hardly 20 years ago has been
reduced to beggary and anarchy.
A coup d'etat
Libya's democratic opposition is a myth conjured up by the western countries
and the 'pro-West' Arab governments. There are deep splits within the
opposition and there are factions ranging from genuine liberals to Islamists
to plain lumpen elements. Then there are the tribal divisions. The
infighting among the various factions seems a recipe for another round of
civil war, as the factions that have neither legitimacy nor authority jostle
for power. The acuteness of the rifts burst into the open last month when
the opposition's commander-in-chief Abdul Fattah Younes was lured back from
the front on a false pretext, taken away from his bodyguards and brutally
tortured and killed by the rebels belonging to an Islamist faction.
The western media have begun openly discussing the role played by the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], which time and again intervened to tilt
the military balance against Muammar Gaddafi. The revolution looks more like
a coup d'etat instigated by Britain and France. Even then, it took the
western alliance an awfully long time stretching over 6 months to get its
'boys' into Tripoli. Gaddafi is still keeping them guessing as to the manner
of his grand exit. The stunning truth is that Gaddafi should decide when to
stop fighting despite having the men and the material to prolong his
defiance for a while.
His course of action in the coming hours or days would have great bearing on
what follows. If there is going to be heavy bloodshed, revenge acts by the
victors over the vanquished will likely follow. In political terms,
Gaddafi's imminent fall doesn't mean the opposition has won. Divested of the
NATO's tactical support, the opposition would have lost. The big question,
therefore, is going to be about NATO's future role in Libya. Alongside
appears the question of whether the NATO would now turn attention to Syria.
NATO embraces Arab world
With the mission of 'regime change' successfully accomplished, NATO ought to
leave the Libyan theatre. The United Nations Security Council Resolution
1973 has been overtaken. But the NATO's withdrawal is too much to expect.
Libya's oil has been the leitmotif of the western intervention. Gaddafi's
recent proclivity to turn to Russia, China, Brazil and India to bring them
into Libya's oil sector obviously threatened the western interests. The
pro-democracy rhetoric emanating out of London and Paris had all along had a
hollow ring. The NATO's intervention in Libya has stretched the limits of
international law and the United Nations Charter. The alliance finds itself
in the ludicrous position of seeking the legitimacy for its continued
presence in Libya from the shady elements who masquerade as the 'democratic'
forces, whose popular support is thin on the ground, on the pretext that
there is still a job to be done.
There is indeed going to be a job to be done. It could well turn out to be
Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. Resistance to foreign occupation is
bound to appear sooner rather than later. Libyan tribes are steeped in the
folklore of resistance. On the other hand, a great paradox of geopolitics is
that anarchical conditions provide just the requisite pretext for
occupation. The story of Libya is not going to be any different from that of
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The West's Libyan intervention introduces new templates in the geopolitics
of the Middle East and Africa. It has brought NATO to the eastern
Mediterranean and Africa. This is of a piece with the United States'
post-cold war strategy to mould the trans-Atlantic alliance into a global
organization with the capability to act in global 'hotspots' with or without
UN mandate. A pivotal role for the alliance in the 'new Middle East' seems
all but certain. There is an ominous ring to the recap of the Libyan chapter
by British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg: "I want to make it absolutely
clear: the UK will not turn its back on the millions of citizens of Arab
states looking to open up their societies, looking for a better life."
Was he talking about Syria? Surely, Clegg couldn't have been suggesting that
Britain is raring to "open up" the societies in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or
Yemen and make the tribals living out there into modern-day citizens. With
the Libyan operation drawing to a close, all eyes are turning on Syria. The
Wall Street Journal speculates: "Libyans' success affects the potentially
more important rebellion in Syria . . . Already there are signs Libya is giving
inspiration to the rebels trying to oust [Bashar al] Assad." But then it
also adds a caveat without which the discussion will remain incomplete:
"There are crucial differences between Libya and Syria, and the Libyan
template will be hard to replicate in Damascus."
High stakes in Syria
However, the western mind is famous for its innovative capacity. Without
doubt, Syria occupies the heart of the Middle East and conflict breaking out
there will most certainly engulf the entire region - including Israel and,
possibly, Iran and Turkey. On the other hand, the calibrated western moves
in the recent weeks, racheting up sanctions, are strikingly similar to those
taken in the prelude to the Libyan intervention. Sustained efforts are afoot
to bring about a unified Syrian opposition. Last weekend's conclave held in
Turkey - third in a row - finally elected a 'council' ostensibly
representing the voice of the Syrian people. Evidently, a focal point is
being carefully crafted, which could be co-opted at a convenient point as
the West's democratic interlocutor representing Syria. The fig-leaf of Arab
League support is also available. The 'pro-West' Arab regimes, which are
autocratic themselves, have reappeared in the forefront of the western
campaign as the flag carriers of representative rule in Syria.
Conceivably, the main hurdle would be to get a United Nations mandate for
the western intervention in Syria. But the Libyan experience shows that an
alibi can always be found. Turkey can be trusted to play a role here. When
Turkey gets involved, Charter 5 of the NATO can be invoked. The heart of the
matter is that regime change in Syria is imperative for the advancement of
the US strategy in the Middle East and Washington is unlikely to brook any
BRICS obstacles on its path, since the stakes are very high. The stakes
include the expulsion of the Hamas leadership from Damascus; the break-up of
the Syrian-Iranian axis; isolation of Iran and a push for regime change
there; weakening and degradation of Hezbollah in Lebanon; and regaining
Israel's strategic dominance over the Arab world. And, of course, at the
root of it all lies the control of oil, which George Kennan had said 60
years ago are "our resources - and not theirs" [Arabs'] - which are crucial
for the continued prosperity of the western world. Mock at him if anyone
claims that cash-strapped western governments and their war- weary citizens
have no more appetite for wars.
Finally, all this means in geopolitical terms the rolling back of Russian
and Chinese influence in the Middle East. A subtle western propaganda has
begun pitting Russia and China as obstacles to regime change in the region -
standing on the 'wrong side of history'. It is a clever ideological twist to
the hugely successful Cold-War era blueprint that pitted communism against
Islam. The body language in the western capitals underscores that there is
no conceivable way the US would let go the opportunity in Syria.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka,
Germany, Adghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
[In coordination with Turkey, the United States has been exploring how to
deal with the possibility of a civil war among Syria's Alawite, Druse,
Christian and Sunni sects--Helene Cooper, "U.S. Is Quietly Getting Ready
for Syria Without Assad," nytimes.com, September 19, 2011]
[Jobs' mother, Joanne Schieble, was a German-American woman who had an
affair with Abdulfattah Jandali in the 1950s, when they were living in
Wisconsin. Her father refused to let her marry a Syrian Muslim, forcing them
to give up the baby boy for adoption in San Francisco, where he was raised
by Paul and Clara Jobs, an Armenian woman who after seven years of marriage
was unable to conceive.--Sami Moubayed, "iSad in
Damascus: Syria reclaims Jobs," atimes.com, October 8, 2011]
[The agreement includes the release of prisoners, the withdrawal of security
forces from the streets and talks between the government and
opposition.--"Syria accepts
Arab League peace plan after Cairo talks," BBC News, November 2, 2011
[ . . . until he was called down by the Syrian government, the American
ambassador in Damascus had criss-crossed the country instigating various
groups to overthrow the regime--"Michael
Scheuer: 'Washington's enemy is one that doesn't exist',"
voltairenet.org, November 10, 2011]
[It is probably safe to assume that most support reform. The question is how
to get it and at what price. Many are demonstrating but there is no sign
that the majority of the people (and this largely includes the internal
opposition) want anything other than evolved political reform. They are
strongly opposed to foreign intervention and they object to Turkey's
aggressive involvement in their affairs. . . .
. . . there are two narratives here the Al Jazeera version where the
violence was all one way until army 'defectors' began shooting back and the
Syrian government version in which armed gangs were causing chaos across the
country well before the 'defectors' joined in. Like most narratives neither
is likely to be completely true or untrue, but there is abundant if
unreported evidence in support of the case being made by the Syrian
government. Many of the accusations against the Syrian government are coming
from exiled groups such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Al
Jazeera reports them with little or no attempt at verification. Its bias in
its 'reporting' of Libya and Syria was so great, in the eyes of its Beirut
bureau chief, Ghassan bin Jiddu, that he resigned in disgust.
What is happening in Syria bears the hallmarks of an orchestrated plan put
into action by the US and its gulf allies. . . . The destruction of the
government and therefore the removal of a long-standing obstacle in the way
of US and Israeli policies is the objective.--Jeremy Salt, "Turkey's Syrian Ambit: New War in the
Making," turkishnews.com, November 18, 2011]
[The United States has three choices. Accept the evolution and try to
live with what emerges. Attempt to make a deal with Iran - a very painful
and costly one. Or go to war. The first assumes Washington can live with
what emerges. The second depends on whether Iran is interested in dealing
with the United States. The third depends on having enough power to wage a
war and to absorb Iran's retaliatory strikes, particularly in the Strait of
Hormuz. All are dubious, so toppling al Assad is critical. It changes the
game and the momentum. But even that is enormously difficult and laden with
risks.--"Power Balance in
the Middle East," Stratfor, November 23, 2011]
[One would think that the charges concerning the alleged repression and the
number of victims were carefully looked into. But not at all. They
originated from a single source: the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights,
based in London, whose leaders demand anonymity. What is the validity of
such grave accusations if they are not cross-checked and why do institutions
such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights rubber stamp them without
verifying their authenticity?--Thierry Meyssan, "Lies and
truths about Syria," voltairenet.org, November 28, 2011]
[The Libyans formerly known as rebels,
with explicit consent from Transitional National Council (TNC) chairman
Mustafa Abdul NATO, aka Jalil, have already shipped to Syria - via Turkey -
600 highly motivated troops fresh from toppling the Gaddafi regime, to fight
alongside the Free Syria Army (FSA). This followed a secret meeting in
Istanbul between the TNC and the Syrian "rebels", rebranded as Syrian
National Council. . . .
Diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times Online that NATOGCC operatives
have set up a command center in Iskenderun, in Hatay province in Turkey.
Crucial Aleppo, in northwest Syria, is very close to the Turkish-Syrian
border. The cover story for this command center is to engineer "humanitarian
corridors" to Syria.
Although these "humanitarians" come from NATO members US, Canada and
France, and GCC members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, their cover is that
they're only innocent ''monitors'', and not part of NATO. Needless to say
these humanitarians consist of ground, naval, air force and engineering
specialists. Their mission: infiltrate northern Syria, especially Idlib,
Rastan, Homs but most of all the big prize, Aleppo, the largest city in
Syria, with at least 2.5 million people, the majority of which are Sunni and
Kurdish.--Pepe Escobar, "The shadow
war in Syria," atimes.com, December 2, 2011]
[The 1996 Israeli document,
which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for "rolling
back Syria" in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians
out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian
opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both
Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011.
This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal
for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.--Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, "Iran and the Strategic
Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon," strategic-culture.org, December 2,
2011]
[What we are seeing in Syria is a deliberate and calculated campaign to
bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime "more
compatible" with US interests in the region.
The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the
neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in
2009.--Aisling Byrne, "A mistaken
case for Syrian regime change," atimes.com, January 5, 2012]
[When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a
propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the
results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha
Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one
of the most hawkish lines against Assad - the emir has just called for Arab
troops to intervene - so it was good that The Doha Debates published the
poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media
outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to
go. . . .
As for foreign military intervention, it has already started. It is not
following the Libyan pattern since Russia and China are furious at the
west's deception in the security council last year. They will not accept a
new United Nations resolution that allows any use of force. The model is an
older one, going back to the era of the cold war, before "humanitarian
intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" were developed and often
misused. Remember Ronald Reagan's support for the Contras, whom he armed and
trained to try to topple Nicaragua's Sandinistas from bases in Honduras? For
Honduras read Turkey, the safe haven where the so-called Free Syrian Army
has set up.--Jonathan Steele, "Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd
never know from western media," Guardian, January 17, 2012]
["If someone conceives the idea of using force at any cost - and I've
already heard calls for sending some Arab troops to Syria - we are unlikely
to be able to prevent this," Mr. Lavrov said. "But this should be done on
their own initiative and should remain on their conscience. They won't get
any authorization from the Security Council."