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

By Robert Fisk
The Independent
February 7, 2012

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-from-washington-this-looks-like-syrias-benghazi-moment-but-not-from-here-6612093.html

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.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate