« The Rhoids! | Main | Assad’s Olive Branch Can Bear No Fruit! »

December 25, 2006

Comments

imbch

Excellent analysis! Should be forwarded to major news agency for publication. Maybe someone with a brain will pick it up...

trustquest

Ammar, It is a good balanced article and excellent description of the current situation. However, it does not address what should the western block do next. It is like keeping the current situation stand still. If the western power stands powerless on changing Syrian’s regime policy and if this regime well-established relation with Iran prevent him from choosing different rout, there are no other choices available, other than engaging him. Engagement here does not mean giving up to him on any front, and I think the Bush administration is capable of doing this.
Another note: if dialogue with Syrian regime is fruitless and could back fire on the regime as I understand from your post, like the case of involving him with Iraq turmoil, it looks to me that this is a good thing that could speed up the change in Syria. The more, this regime, get engaged with more fronts, it makes him loose its grip on another front. Am on my side believe that accelerating the openness of Syrian society is a recipe for the fall of this system or at least the change in its structure.

Rancher

Are you trying to get published in any American newspapers? You're pretty much preaching to the choir on your blog; you need to get this analysis out there to a wider audience.

Ammar

Rancher, indeed, the article has already appeared in dozens of newspapers around the world in all the languages listed above. But indeed, I do need to focus on writing an op-ed to a major new newspaper here.

Trustquest, the policy alternative is to keep the isolation and build up pressures using the one thing that is readily available and won’t go away: the UN inquiry into the Hariri investigation. Everything the regime is doing revolves around its desire to wiggle out of this tight spot it voluntarily put itself in. The tribunal should be established, states from the region should be encouraged to cooperate with it, and the findings should be published when they are ready.

Dialogue with the Syria regime is not going to produce the dynamics of overstretch that you are counting on. The Assads will more likely centralize more powers in their hand again, play the usual jingoistic tunes, and mobilize the populations and send the young to fight in the name of the national constants on all these multiple fronts. The society will pay for the Assads’ sins as always. Our people have a much higher tolerance levels for such state of affairs than peoples elsewhere, I call it historiosis, or even in our case, Syriosis – there is simply too much history here, too many memories of passed turbulence and promised salvations that turned into nightmares and damnations to make us all more than just cynic, we are cynicism incarnate. Time cannot change that, only miracles can. I believe that miracles are the product of constant and ceaseless experimentation by the few with unpredictable results, of course, at least on the short term.

So, I am not really bogging or lobbying, I am experimenting, hence the occasional contradictory stands, and my non-ideological commitment to the NSF. To me, the NSF is an experiment that continues to prove worth it on some level since it keeps the Assads guessing.

RoxieAmerica

I believe talking to Iran would be -- based on the record -- a disaster. I believe I covered it in the three part series -- (all in one place here: http://blue-is-beautiful.blogspot.com/2006/12/complete-series-fear-mongering-or.html

Anonymous

I think you have come up with something very coherent about a very chaotic problem. But the solution is still lacking. I believe there should be a very solid world front (military as well as political) headed by the US, Western Europe and moderate Arabs to ensure the success of the US (or the success of the front as a whole) in Iraq. This front will be able to act independently of the UN which has proven its inefficacy. I believe the binding factor for such front would be Iraqi oil. If the US fails, then Iran will seek to control Southern Iraq and with it the oil fields. The result will be an Iran sitting on top of over 40% of world oil reserves - a scenario dreamed by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. If the US succeeds it will gain access to more than 60% of world oil reserves - Iraq, Kuwait, Gulf plus SA. So, there is so much at stake. Could the US and Europe afford to lose? It is time for the taboo regarding the fight for oil to be broken. After all we cannot live without this fuel - at least not in the foreseeable future! So let us begin calling things by their names and let us leave idealism aside. If Democracy comes along as a by-product, so be it. In the meantime, let us stay focused and fight the bad guys as they should be fought.

Anonymous

Ok Ammar:
The problem from the beginning is hidden in the world dialogue, because the U.S. does not make a balanced dialouge for many reasons. The united states is the unipolar power in the world, it does make orders, and not discussions. seconds, all those people that you mentioned in your article are puppets to the states, to some senators, to some oil companies, and to many thing else.

The main problem then in the west, and not as you claimed in the middle east systems, because all the Middle
East regimes are formed previously, and have been supported by the united states. All Islamic fundamentalists groups had been formed and grew under the umbrella of the CIA, and now it is not the west problem?

We have to take under consideration the economical profits-of all the wars in the Middle East-to the owners of the United States. Profits over human, before over countries.

I am not defending the puppets, like Assad and his alike in the Middle East, but they were put in power by the West, and the west responsible for the mess then.

Jon

Anonymous

Jon,
I would only say to you: Really? How could you be so thoughtful!!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.