« Reactions to “The Imbecile!” | Main | Taking the Real Initiative! »

August 17, 2006

Comments

yaman

Excellent article Ammar. What do you think can be done to undercut the Assad's apparent plans for war? Obviously, and as you stated, it is not entirely in the West's hands, but do you think smart moves by Israel could help undermine this path to disaster?

Abu Kareem

The Baathist regime and other of similar tendencies survive on strife and chaos. It is because all they know how to do is destroy nations and line their pockets in the process.

I hope you are wrong about the Golan-Hizbullah bit. Are they really that stupid or that suicidal or is this just for internal public consumption? And what's up with digging trenches? it is so WWI. They are just trying to keep the idle hands of the army busy?

I think all this talk is the usual empty hot air typical of this regime. What is different today is that with the trigger happy US and Israeli governments, it doesn't take more than "hot air" to trigger a confrontation.

So Ammar, I think I just answered my own question. This regime IS that stupid.

Battal Agha

Your comments plus if you read the news randomly, you read that:

1. Iran has just started Military maneuvers due to last “indefinitely” to test its military skills because of the situation in the Middle East
2. Syria has apparently started to remove mines from their side of the border on the Golan, and has massed some tanks
3. Syria has started since last June to enroll volunteer to form a Jihadist brigade to “liberate the Golan”
4. Hezbollah may be bringing into South Lebanon, under the guise of refugees returning home, a few thousands of fighters (Iranian – Syrian or Palestinian)
5. The 22nd of August is the date that Ahmadinejad said he would give his reply to the UN resolution on his Nuclear Program
6. The 22nd of August corresponds in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

What do you make of all this?

Would Iran strike Israel (using Hezb or Syria as proxy) on that day with an Atomic weapon to:

• Show the world that they are member of the Nuclear Club
• That they have indeed annihilated Israel as they have promised
• Take the leadership of the Muslim world and embark on a Djihad against the west?

Guys, let me know your views / comments

Innocent_Criminal

Batal Agha,

I think the combination of hallucinogens and conspiracy theories don’t mix well with you.

Ammar

The looming disaster I predict will most likely come as a result of too many people making too many idiotic statements and moves, rather than as a result of any kind of serious planning and foresight.

Yaman, it might just too late for any smart moves by anyone at this stage. Be that as it may, your suggestions are as smart as can be. I doubt the Assads could reciprocate such gestures though, I doubt that they will be allowed, even if they wanted to, by their Mullah allies. The Assads have become hostages now to the wills and whims and interests of the Mullahs. The old game of playing one side against the other to maximize your benefits, or decrease your losses, requires a smart central decision-making process and a central decision-making figure, none of which exist today.

yaman

As for Iran's willingness to nuke Israel... would a seemingly-ideologically driven government condone the destruction of the "Holy Land"? Using an atomic bomb on Israel would pretty much make Israel and the Palestinian territories uninhabitable for years...

Philip I

I am looking at the situation from a different angle but still conclude, like you do, that we are entering a new, quite dangerous, period for Syria.

See new post:

Assad caught up in nuclear game

Anonymous

Ammar,
You certainly hit the point sometimes when analyzing Syrian regime. However, despise of the Syrian regime is leading you to a very unprofessional miss judgment of their ally the Iranians. Obviously you have never been to Iran or never been interested in reading about the Iranian regime. No one blames you for that; it is out of your area of interest. However, be careful in making false judgment; you refer to them as Mullah with a tone that suggests: retarded, and put them into the same category of you imbecile.
It is not the time here to explain how entirely and fundamentally the Iranian regime defers from the Syrian one, or talk about the difference in institutional and nation-building achievements of both regimes.
Iran is not a one-man or one-family regime as it is the case in Syria.
Iran also is an established nation, unlike Syria who cannot make its mind whether it is Arabic or Islamic or Syrian. The sense of nationalism in Iran is, at-best, four hundred years ahead of the same in Syria, where 99 per cent of the population still refuse the acceptance of modern-days Syria as a nation and still look back to some non-existing forms of unity, way beyond the present borders south and north.
The above point is extremely important in forming the national policy of a country. Assads and most prominent Syrian political figures inside and outside the regimes (what is called opposition), have absolutely no concern about the risks that their policies might bring to the existence of Syria. That is because Syria itself is a mere temporary entity serving greater purpose such as “staying in power” or “merging with others to form a greater Islamic Regime” (refer to the newest Ikhwan Muslimeen Agenda published in their website about their view on Syria’s entity as a nation), or take parts of it to where they supposedly belonged (refer to most of the Kurdish parties statements in their website about futuristic visions, read the Kurdish version).
Iranian regime on the other hand, and regardless of all the propaganda about Islamic state etc, has a great and established sense of nationalism preservation which would prevent the regime from any action that would jeopardize the existence of their nation or country. Iranian regime has learned much since it was forced to enter a useless war with Iraq. The proof is everywhere; in both Gulf Wars, Iran took the position that allowed it in both cases to emerge-up as the most benificary of these wars, economically and strategically. It has booming relations with Japan, China, Russia, India. It also has stable and strong economical relation with Europe. Iran is a semi-industrialized nation with established economical and strategic plans. Syria cannot manufacture a chewing-gum without importing half of its ingredients and cannot plan its economy for the coming month.
The Iranian regime is institutional and knows well how to play the international relation games. Iran knows exactly where it is heading in this nuclear game with the States and Europe. Armageddon and mayhem are not on the list of the Iranian destinations. That is why if Syria was actually sticking by the Mullah’s as you suggest, then it would have been a good thing for Syria! That is because those Mullahs are way much cleverer than the gang of imbeciles in Syria as you name them. If Syria was really a strategic ally of Iran, this alliance would have gotten Syria some achievements. The reality is Syria is no real ally of Iran, the Syrian regime has chosen to use Iran as a card for negotiation that he might throw away anytime without a blink.
There is much talk about the Assads being under Iran’s influence. That is utter miss information. Here is some insider information that might raise your eyebrows; The fact is, Syrian regime has worked in the past few years on cutting the wings of every Iranian sympathizer in the regime body or outside, including Khaddam himself (before his break off of the gang), who was pushing for more strategic cooperation with the Iranians. The Iranian embassy’s activity has never been as restricted as it is today. The choice of the ambassadors and the disengagement of some military relations that were much deeper in the past are some of the many signs of the clear cut that the new Syrian regime wanted to make with the Iranians. Most the main influential figures in the Assad family, namely Rami and Maher, thought that Iran was acquiring more influence in Syria than it should.
On the media front, the situation is different. We hear of alliances and treaties, but the reality is the relations on the ground have never been colder in fifteen years (in comparison to the past of course).
Syrian regime is foolishly using Iran as a bargain card, no more and no less. And for that reason, Iran will probably do the same regarding the Syrian regime.
Taking into consideration how weak and isolated Syria is, I would have been happier if Syria was actually a strategic ally of Iran. It would have been a good opportunity for Syrian regime to learn a good lesson of nation-building and international politics games. Unfortunately the Syrian regime is not interested and is choosing to side by no one but itself. A regime that was based-on and cultivated the concept of mistrust can not fathom the idea of strategic alliance.
Iran is not taking the area into any Armageddon. The Syrian regime, by insisting on trusting no one but the blood relation between its members (increasing the networks by so many intra-marriages with Damascene families recently) might take Syria into one. But it certainly would not be because he followed the Mullahs, the contrary might be correct. Leave Iran away of your ranting over the gang of imbeciles in Muhajereen’s palace. I assure you there are no imbeciles in the Azadi palace.

S.F.E.

tin14

It's a great article. But was I only who felt there were loop holes somwhere?

Ammar

I am actually in total agreement with you, Anonymous 1:39 am. I really should put a more refined search bar in this blog, so I can find my earlier post. But I did indeed write on the complexity of the Iranian system of governance and the existence of a more qualified political and technocratic class there, especially when compared with Syria. So, really my use of the term Mullahs is not meant to be as reductionist as you seem to have thought. But thanks for your input indeed.

As for loopholes, of course. Eight hundred words will not suffice to cover all grounds.

Alex Richards

First of all, interesting blog you have.
Second, I have some thing to point out:
1. Syrian natonalism is strong. Despite all the efforts of our "generalissimo" and son to destroy it, but it's there, as strong as ever.
2. I agree with S.F.E about Iran as a country and nation. I cannot but respect them and give them as a positive example to be followed: after Islamic Revolution, American and International embargo and Irak war, they have risen from their own ashes and proven themselves as a developed industrialized self-sufficient super-power. All my admiration!
3. Funny to see how these apostates are uniting with their own declared enemies ( the Brotherhood) just to stick to power, to suck more blood from the opressed people. Leeches.
4. Aren't you giving them a bit too much credit?

EXCANUK2006

AMMAR

I think you are right about Assad and the government of Syria. I wonder why Assad does not understand what it can mean for him and his people if he were to become a good neighbor?

I have explained to many people in the comments section of Kevin Sites In The Hot Zone, http://www.yahoo.com that Canada and the United States have been good neighbors for many many years.

Yet I still read, and hear, "death to Israel, Jews, the United States and the infidels".

Maybe we ( us Americans) can avoid another war by setting a good example by not becoming involved in conflicts in other countries. What do you think?

Also, I would like to introduce you and your readers to my blog site. I have called my site INSPIRATION and the url is http://understandinggood.blogspot.com

Fares

Ammar your article is now in the daily star!!! good job

The comments to this entry are closed.