Is Boy Assad "Crazy" Like A Fox?
Not to rain on the parade of jubilance over Lebanon's burgeoning Cedar Revolution - including Kay's excellent round-up yesterday - but here may be a sobering note that we may need to consider as the next days and weeks pass.
Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad have an interest in triggering Israeli military and security reactions. All of them are opposed to Mahmoud Abbas's agreement with Israel and hope to undermine his efforts. However, behind these "organizations" you have the regimes that feed and use them: Syria's Baath party and Iran's mullahs. The Tel Aviv bombing several days ago could have been executed by either one or more of the organizations, as they are multiple arms of Syria's terror strategies. And Damascus today has an interest in dragging Israel into a military confrontation.
Why would Syria, which is in trouble in Lebanon and under pressure because of its role in Iraq, want this additional "problem" with the Israelis? Isn't this yet another miscalculation? Possibly: But the Baathist regime needs to heat up the conflict with Israel so that the nature of its confrontation in Lebanon with an increasingly united opposition of Christians, Druze, and Sunnis (and some moderate Shiites) can change. This post-assassination unity is a lethal threat to Syria's interests in Lebanon. The regime cannot afford to withdraw from the country it has occupied for decades. Bashar Assad was offered a way out several times by the U.S. since 2002 but he continues refusing to relinquish control. With a U.N. resolution pending, and a vigorous Lebanese diaspora putting pressure worldwide, Syria's Baath is in real trouble in Lebanon. Hence, they are now using the tools at their disposal: the jihadist organizations. By striking Israel, they aim to force it to retaliate in a limited way, which will give Hezbollah the pro-Syrian regime in Beirut an opportunity to crush the opposition.
In short, if Assad can deflect international scrutiny back onto the "little state the world loves to hate," he can chop down the Cedar Revolution at his leisure and with impunity.
I don't know if I'd call this a "cunning plan." Sounds more like Damascus' final card, even if it is one that has worked well for them in the past.
However, at least so far in the wake of last weekend's Tel Aviv suicide bombing, the Israelis don't appear to be taking the bait.
In another period during the military confrontation with the Palestinians, Israel's retaliation to a suicide bombing of the kind that took place on Friday night in Tel Aviv would have been almost automatic. It would have been directed against the suicide bomber's operators, regardless of the Palestinian Authority. The IDF would also have destroyed his house, thinking this would deter other suicide bombers.
This time the conclusion is different. Israel decided to let Mahmoud Abbas and his government act against the perpetrators of the bombing and prove they are indeed against violence and attacks on Israelis.
Personally I'm always uncomfortable with anything other than a viciously aggressive stance against such brazen, deadly provocations. Particularly this same tired old intifada template of "calling upon the Palestinian Authority to crack down on the terrorists." If the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, there hasn't been a sane Jew in the Holy Land for the past twelve years.
But perhaps - hell, doubtless - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is looking at Syria squirming in the trap in which it has unwittingly ensnared itself and isn't giving Junior Assad the out he's desperately seeking.
I still believe that we're going to have to overrun Iran and Syria sooner or later - for all the demo-drama of the past few months in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iraq, and now perhaps Lebanon, there are limits to what "people power" can accomplish on its own - but there's nothing at all wrong with gaining as much diplomatic and propaganda capital as we can before the tanks roll.
On the other hand, that probably means a wave of fresh suicide bombings in quick succession to maximize the pressure on the Israelis to strike back.
Which is greater: Assad's brains and ruthlessness or Sharon's patience? The answer to that question may go far in determining the ultimate fate of the former - and possibly the latter as well.
UPDATE: David Frum echoes the viewpoint that demanding a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon - spooks as well as troops - will mean war:
The Bush Administration is unlikely to be fooled by an appeasement policy. The joint US-French demand for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon followed the surrender of Saddam's half-brother. And Condoleezza Rice made clear that both the Syrian troops and Syrian intelligence services must go.
But will the Bush Administration press the point if the Syrians seem to meet them half-way? That will be a real moment of testing for the Bush policy. Will the Bush administration hold firm? Will it insist on total withdrawal, including the spy services, on the full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, and on genuinely free elections in May? If so, expect a furious response from Syria, from its ally Iran, and from the terrorist militias they control inside Lebanon. Make no mistake: For the Syrians, Lebanese democracy means war. It's a war the United States can and must win - but only if the US is as tough, as determined, and as clear-eyed as its new Syrian enemy.
The question will be how this next campaign can be configured so as to not distract from the confrontation with Iran, but rather reinforce it.
Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad have an interest in triggering Israeli military and security reactions. All of them are opposed to Mahmoud Abbas's agreement with Israel and hope to undermine his efforts. However, behind these "organizations" you have the regimes that feed and use them: Syria's Baath party and Iran's mullahs. The Tel Aviv bombing several days ago could have been executed by either one or more of the organizations, as they are multiple arms of Syria's terror strategies. And Damascus today has an interest in dragging Israel into a military confrontation.
Why would Syria, which is in trouble in Lebanon and under pressure because of its role in Iraq, want this additional "problem" with the Israelis? Isn't this yet another miscalculation? Possibly: But the Baathist regime needs to heat up the conflict with Israel so that the nature of its confrontation in Lebanon with an increasingly united opposition of Christians, Druze, and Sunnis (and some moderate Shiites) can change. This post-assassination unity is a lethal threat to Syria's interests in Lebanon. The regime cannot afford to withdraw from the country it has occupied for decades. Bashar Assad was offered a way out several times by the U.S. since 2002 but he continues refusing to relinquish control. With a U.N. resolution pending, and a vigorous Lebanese diaspora putting pressure worldwide, Syria's Baath is in real trouble in Lebanon. Hence, they are now using the tools at their disposal: the jihadist organizations. By striking Israel, they aim to force it to retaliate in a limited way, which will give Hezbollah the pro-Syrian regime in Beirut an opportunity to crush the opposition.
In short, if Assad can deflect international scrutiny back onto the "little state the world loves to hate," he can chop down the Cedar Revolution at his leisure and with impunity.
I don't know if I'd call this a "cunning plan." Sounds more like Damascus' final card, even if it is one that has worked well for them in the past.
However, at least so far in the wake of last weekend's Tel Aviv suicide bombing, the Israelis don't appear to be taking the bait.
In another period during the military confrontation with the Palestinians, Israel's retaliation to a suicide bombing of the kind that took place on Friday night in Tel Aviv would have been almost automatic. It would have been directed against the suicide bomber's operators, regardless of the Palestinian Authority. The IDF would also have destroyed his house, thinking this would deter other suicide bombers.
This time the conclusion is different. Israel decided to let Mahmoud Abbas and his government act against the perpetrators of the bombing and prove they are indeed against violence and attacks on Israelis.
Personally I'm always uncomfortable with anything other than a viciously aggressive stance against such brazen, deadly provocations. Particularly this same tired old intifada template of "calling upon the Palestinian Authority to crack down on the terrorists." If the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, there hasn't been a sane Jew in the Holy Land for the past twelve years.
But perhaps - hell, doubtless - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is looking at Syria squirming in the trap in which it has unwittingly ensnared itself and isn't giving Junior Assad the out he's desperately seeking.
I still believe that we're going to have to overrun Iran and Syria sooner or later - for all the demo-drama of the past few months in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iraq, and now perhaps Lebanon, there are limits to what "people power" can accomplish on its own - but there's nothing at all wrong with gaining as much diplomatic and propaganda capital as we can before the tanks roll.
On the other hand, that probably means a wave of fresh suicide bombings in quick succession to maximize the pressure on the Israelis to strike back.
Which is greater: Assad's brains and ruthlessness or Sharon's patience? The answer to that question may go far in determining the ultimate fate of the former - and possibly the latter as well.
UPDATE: David Frum echoes the viewpoint that demanding a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon - spooks as well as troops - will mean war:
The Bush Administration is unlikely to be fooled by an appeasement policy. The joint US-French demand for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon followed the surrender of Saddam's half-brother. And Condoleezza Rice made clear that both the Syrian troops and Syrian intelligence services must go.
But will the Bush Administration press the point if the Syrians seem to meet them half-way? That will be a real moment of testing for the Bush policy. Will the Bush administration hold firm? Will it insist on total withdrawal, including the spy services, on the full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, and on genuinely free elections in May? If so, expect a furious response from Syria, from its ally Iran, and from the terrorist militias they control inside Lebanon. Make no mistake: For the Syrians, Lebanese democracy means war. It's a war the United States can and must win - but only if the US is as tough, as determined, and as clear-eyed as its new Syrian enemy.
The question will be how this next campaign can be configured so as to not distract from the confrontation with Iran, but rather reinforce it.
posted by JASmius at 10:22 PM
<<< Home