"The trouble is that the West has been so deluged with stories and lectures
and think-tank nonsense about the ghastly Iran and the unfaithful Iraq and
the vicious Syria and the frightened Lebanon that it is almost impossible
to snap off these delusional pictures and realise that Assad is not alone.
That is not to praise Assad or to support his continuation. But it's real."
http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/robert-fisk
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But
not from here
Look east and what does Bashar see? Iran standing with him and Iraq
refusing to impose sanctions
*Robert Fisk*
Tuesday 07 February 2012
President Bashar al-Assad is not about to go. Not yet. Not, maybe, for
quite a long time. Newspapers in the Middle East are filled with stories
about whether or not this is Assad's "Benghazi moment" – these reports are
almost invariably written from Washington or London or Paris – but few in
the region understand how we Westerners can get it so wrong. The old saw
has to be repeated and repeated: Egypt was not Tunisia; Bahrain was not
Egypt; Yemen was not Bahrain; Libya was not Yemen. And Syria is very
definitely not Libya.
It's not difficult to see how the opposite plays in the West. The barrage
of horrifying Facebook images from Homs, and statements from the "Free
Syrian Army", and the huffing of La Clinton and the amazement that Russia
can be so blind to the suffering of Syrians – as if America was anything
but blind to the suffering of Palestinians when, say, more than 1,300 were
killed in Israel's onslaught on Gaza – doesn't gel with reality on the
ground. Why should the Russians care about Homs? Did they care about the
dead of Chechnya?
Look at it the other way round. Yes, we all know that Syria's intelligence
service has committed human rights abuses. They did that in Lebanon. Yes,
we all know this is a regime in Damascus, not an elected government. Yes,
we all know about corruption. Yes, we watched the UN's humiliation at the
weekend – although why La Clinton should expect the Russians to click their
heels after the "no-fly zone" in Libya turned into "regime change" is a bit
of a mystery.
The destruction of the Alawite-led government in Syria – which means in
effect, a Shia regime – will be a sword in the soul of Shia Iran. And look
at the Middle East now from the windows of the massive presidential palace
that overlooks the old city of Damascus. True, the Gulf has turned against
Syria. True, Turkey has turned against Syria (while generously offering
Bashar exile in the old Ottoman empire).
But look east, and what does Bashar see? Loyal Iran standing with him.
Loyal Iraq – Iran's new best friend in the Arab world – refusing to impose
sanctions. And to the west, loyal little Lebanon refusing to impose
sanctions. Thus from the border of Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, Assad
has a straight line of alliances which should prevent, at least, his
economic collapse.
The trouble is that the West has been so deluged with stories and lectures
and think-tank nonsense about the ghastly Iran and the unfaithful Iraq and
the vicious Syria and the frightened Lebanon that it is almost impossible
to snap off these delusional pictures and realise that Assad is not alone.
That is not to praise Assad or to support his continuation. But it's real.
The Turks, after much Clinton-style huffing and puffing, did not follow
through on their "cordon sanitaire" in northern Syria. Nor did King
Abdullah II follow through on the Syrian opposition's call for a Jordanian
"cordon sanitaire" in the south. Oddly, I repeat yet again, only Israel has
remained silent.
As long as Syria can trade with Iraq, it can trade with Iran and, of
course, it can trade with Lebanon. The Shia of Iran and the Shia majority
in Iraq and the Shia leadership (though not majority) in Syria and the Shia
(the largest community, but not a majority) in Lebanon will be on Assad's
side, however reluctantly. That, I'm afraid, is the way the cookie
crumbles. Crazed Gaddafi had real enemies with firepower and Nato. Assad's
enemies have Kalashnikovs and no Nato.
Assad has Damascus and Aleppo, and those cities matter. His principal
military units have not defected to the opposition.
The "good guys" also contain "bad guys" – a fact we forgot in Libya, even
when the "good guys" murdered their defected army commander and tortured
prisoners to death. Oh yes, and the Royal Navy was able to put into
Benghazi. It cannot put into Tartous because the Russian Navy is still
there.
----[Mailing List for Eritrea Related News ]----
Received on Wed Feb 08 2012 - 12:39:31 EST
