No Free Lunch for Assad
Washington – July 27, 2009 (RPS Staff Blog) – As the policy of President Obama towards Syria unravels, celebratory statements from Damascus and Assad’s representative in Washington, provide a glimpse of the short-term view the Assad dictatorial regime embraces to maintain its survivability. From Assad’s perspective, sending back a US Ambassador to Damascus, without any positive commitments to any of the major concerns the west has towards Syria’s support of terrorism, shows off Assad’s maneuverability at dictating his own terms.
What Assad has yet to include in his calculations are some long-term matters, which, sooner or later, will hit his sail.
For one, the US and Israel are adamant on guarantees that Iran recoils on building a nuclear device of any kind. The latest statements from the Netanyahu government, even before a roadmap is made public in regard to peace between Syria and Israel, are clear on this poignant issue. The combination of the two may give Assad no options but to abandon Iran, against his will and instinct for survival. He may continue developing the peace roadmap with Israel or he will balk. Either way, we believe that the arrow aimed at the Iranian nuclear program has already left its quiver when the US decided to send a US Ambassador to Syria (These are our own assessments and analysis not based on any information of any kind from anyone).
If our assessment is correct (Again, based on our own calculations that could be erroneous), upon the arrow reaching its target, Assad will have three options. 1) If he sides with Iran, as he did with all the other rogue regimes, he will turn back the clock on himself. The new US Ambassador in Damascus will spend his time delivering messages of doom to Assad. 2) If he quits on Iran in pursuit of the Israeli peace he so much desires to take cover under from further international pressures, we believe Israel may deliver one that will clip his wings rather than a peace that will promote his regime or empower him further. 3) If he publicly sides with Iran but secretly with the US, as he is expected to do, Iran will not watch his treachery go unpunished. Rumors are circulating that plans may be underway to insure that he does not play his usual game.
Secondly, Assad, who is playing amongst the trees, has yet to peek at the forest. One by one, all of his assets will be diluted as he rushes towards the peace he has no choice but to pursue if he wants US sanctions to be lifted; slowly and one at a time. Once the US takes command of the direction of Hamas as the Obama administration intends to do, Assad will find that between US rapprochement and a peace initiative with Israel, he lost both Hamas to the US and any control of Hezbollah to Iran. If he embarks on the same Iraqi policy he promoted over the last 6 years, he will see that Iraq will be ready for him this time around now that he stands alone.
Should he decide to pedal back, the US may continue on its path of peace but more than likely will freeze any prospect of further thawing of relations until Assad continues with his motion of falling off the fence into the US camp. This will force him into neutral ground and a motionless Assad is as good as a rabbit fleeing into a hole.
In either case, Assad’s policies over the last 6 will unravel before his eyes.
The path chosen by Obama towards Syria confirms two facts: 1) Iran is the real danger, and 2) Isolating Syria from Iran will also isolate Syria from playing hardball in the future.
There is no love lost for Syria or Assad in the US. The blood of American servicemen and women who died needlessly after helping Iraqis free their country from another dictator is still fresh in the minds of many.
As Assad celebrates his successes, we remind him that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Ask any American, Democrat or Republican to confirm. The gravity of Obama’s peace policies, while on the surface look beneficial to Assad, are intended to break him and his cabal from harming anyone in the future.
Meanwhile, it is our job to confuse Assad as much as possible by either assailing, advancing, justifying, or siding with US and Israeli policies as we see fit.
