This is exactly how my working group on a federated Syria sees the conflict and the solution. Ted Belman
By Georgy Gounev, AMERICAN THINKER
The most important international factor that influences the Syrian crisis is the politics of the United States and Russia. In the eyes of the majority of the American observers, the primary factor for the continuing bloodshed in Syria is the diplomatic and military support rendered to Assad’s regime by Russia.
Let’s take a closer look at the main arguments of the powerful group of observers and experts who tend to blame exclusively Moscow for the endless bloodbath in Syria. Some of those arguments are absolutely correct. It is true that one of the main reasons for the Russian attitude is the traditional close relationship between Moscow and Damascus that has lasted for decades. It is also true that the loss of this connection will deprive Russia of its only remaining ally in the area. In case of a regime change, Russia is about to lose Tartus, which is the only base of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean.
Undoubtedly, given that in the eyes of President Putin the United States is the main geopolitical enemy of his country, he is determined not to allow an American victory in the Syrian confrontation. All this is true, and it fits the “blame Russia for Syria’s calamity” school of interpretation. At the same time, however, there are some additional elements of the picture that as a rule are absent from Western analyses but which happen to be absolutely correct.
The most important among them is Moscow’s stake in the future of bilateral relations with Syria and the Russian interest in finding a solution to the crisis that will preserve the secular system of government. This dimension of the Russian approach to the Syrian crisis has never been properly understood by Sec. Clinton. As far as the State Department bureaucracy is concerned, they also don’t understand, or rather pretend not to understand, that a victory of the opposition will be nothing short of the establishment of an Islamic dictatorship over Syria.
At the same time, regardless of the hostile attitude of President Putin, portraying the United States as enemy number one, he realizes to an extent the nature of the Islamic danger hanging over Russia. That is why at least part of the Russian policy regarding Iran is based on the fear of the Shia-related Iranian influence. Any confrontation with Teheran will increase the magnitude of the Islamic threat to Moscow.
The main threat for Russia is the Saudi-originated Wahhabist branch of extreme Islam. Wahhabism is the ideological fuel to the fundamentalist guerrilla warfare in the area of the Northern Caucasus. The most disturbing recent development was the attempt on the lives of two leading Muslim clerics who were attacked in the center of Kazan (the capital of Tatarstan, the largest Muslim-populated province of the Russian Federation, located 400 kilometers east of Moscow). One of them died, and the other was wounded. The reason for the attack was their hostility towards Wahhabism. In short, Moscow doesn’t want to see the Assad regime replaced by a fanatical Islamic state ruled by Wahhabists.
There are two possible exits from the seemingly endless conflict that ravages Syria. One of them is highly desirable but also highly unlikely. It would require an American-Russian understanding based on the agreement of both countries not to accept the establishment of an Islamic-dominated dictatorship over Syria after the end of the Assad regime.
The second option would express itself in the breakup of Syria by the emergence of a mini-Alawite state along the coastline, where most of the Alawites live. Such a state will be protected by the Syrian army in its present composition. There are talks also between some Kurdish activists and their compatriots from Northern Iraq for the creation of an autonomous Kurdish region on Syrian soil. Under such a scenario, most of Syria, including the capital of Damascus, will be a part of an Islamic, theocratic state.
There is much more contradiction than unity within the ranks of the Syrian opposition. Heavy-duty mutual accusations are flying back and forth among the representatives of the different organizations and leaders. The ideological pendulum of the enemies of the Assad regime varies from the hardcore jihadists all the way to the relatively limited group that includes pro-Western democrats.
Every outside attempt to help the unification of the anti-Assad opposition has failed. As a matter of fact, the most recent event along those lines that took place in Cairo in early July, instead of bringing about much-sought-after togetherness and solidarity, made things worse. The Kurdish delegation, for instance. virtually stormed out of the last session of the conference because of the unwillingness of the potential Arab allies to recognize their national identity.
There is more to this picture, though. The most numerous and the best-organized component of the opposition is represented by the notorious Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
One of the many tragic features of the civil war that devastates Syria expresses itself in the fact that the Brotherhood is not fighting for democracy. The goal of the Brothers is to replace the authoritarian and secular dictatorship of Bashir Assad with an Islamic tyranny based on the ideology of the Sunni-based extreme variety of Islam.
In the aftermath of the repressions that followed the crackdown of the Hama-based Islamic insurrection of 1982, many participants have left the country. The majority of them settled in Germany and Spain, where they were immediately granted the status of political refugees. With the growth of Jihadism that followed 9/11 and the outbreak of the Iraqi war, the Syrian Islamists were amongst the most active fighters for global jihad. They fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya — in short, everywhere. Evidently oblivious to the hospitality of the people of Spain, their Syrian guests established a connection of their own to the infamous Madrid bombing of 2004.
A Syrian jihadist by the name of Abu Musab al Suri played a key role in the popularization of the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world. It was al Suri who published on Pakistani soil a book entitled The Islamic Jihadi Revolution in Syria, which established him as one of the main theoreticians of jihad.
As it has been pointed out, the most tragic aspect of the American-Russian confrontation over Syria is the fact that it is the clash between Washington and Moscow that feeds the continuation of the Syrian civil war and, consequently, the huge loss of innocent life. Unless the policymakers of both countries accept the reality that it is Islamic fundamentalism which represents the biggest threat hanging over them, the Syrian tragedy will continue under different shapes and forms that finally will impact the ability of the country to survive.
Georgy Gounev, Ph.D. teaches the ideology & strategy of radical Islam in Southern California and is the author of the book The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon. The Islamization of Europe and its Impact on the American-Russian Relations, Foreign Policy Challenges LLC, Laguna Hills, 2011.
yamit82 Said:
This appears to be the case, but I wonder where it is going?
@ BlandOatmeal:
Syria is the only ME country giving the Russians access to the Med. Syria is the only Major ME Customer for Russian weapons. Syria is allied with Iran who is allied with Syria and Hezbollah who are virulently anti America.
If Russia loses Syria it will be seen as a defeat for Russia and set them back a decade of slowly attempting to recreate their Superpower ambitions. They are negotiating with Cyprus as a fallback entity if they lose Syria at least insofar as a Naval station. That puts them four square against Turkey and Israel has negotiated defense agreements with Cyprus as well. There is a lot of Black Gold between Cyprus and Israel meaning Oil and Gas.
Everyone seems to be staking out positions in advance of a new ME and rapidly changing Global power realignment.
Looks like no matter how it develops Israel will be at the center of the action.
Felix Quigley Said:
Pray tell why? Israel and Syria are in a state of war which actually calls for the opposite stance.
Felix Quigley Said:
This has to be one of the most absurd staements I have ever read. Israel must act only in its own interest and the survival of assad is not. Taking Syrian territory or buffer zone and setting up a puppet regime, seizing WMD, encouraging an ongoing chaos and slaughter among the enemies, the breakup of Syria: these are all in the interest of Israel
Felix Quigley Said:
I cannot see where “political principle” characterises your example. Political principle is ideological pap meant for the consumption of useful idiots. Your example, and other “odd” alliances(eg Stalin and Hitler) are examples of political interests in contradiction of principle. I think you are too mired in ideology which clouds your vision. My own experience teaches that the more ideology equals the less truth, that idealogues tend to be opportunists seeking personal gain in power and/or money, that appeals to ideologies in argument tend to be self serving and manipulative, that followers of ideologies tend to be clones and useful idiots. I think you get my gist.
Felix Quigley Said:
This is a questionable statement as the US has tended to call for cease fires the minute Israel has shown it can proceed to put the enemy into unconditional surrender. I think the US prefers a “certain balance” so as to keep the region dependent on a “policeman”.
This is to Russia’s credit. The US has developed, especially under Obama, a sordid reputation for stabbing longstanding friends in the back. Russia is to be commended, for sticking with its friends.
An Israeli strike on Iran will firmly put her in opposition to Assad. To envisage the only replacement of Assad to be a jihadist regime displays a vivid lack of imagination. It would suit both the US and Russia for a secular leadership to emerge, and the Syrian army could guarantee such an outcome. At present, the overlooked Syrian Democratic Council is positioned in Paris, ready to step up to the plate and assume the mantle of leadership, thus frustrating both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi-backed Wahabis.
They have even made overtures to striking a modus vivendi with Israel.
As the Lubavitcher Rebbe said, “Think good and good may happen.”
The US are clearly along with the British and others interfering with the sovereigny of another country. The issue of Iran and Hizbullah are totally separate issues, in this case, where the US Imperialists, Establishment, (choose your term) are gearing up for war, urged on by the deepening gloom in the world capitalist crisis
These issues of Libya, Egypt and now Syria have taught to all of us who love Israel and who defend the Jews that the present leadership connected with the Jews, on a broad scale, are incapable of leading in a principled fashion in this period of growing Fascism, no more than Judaic leaders could defend the Jews against the Fascism of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.
The first task in all of these situations is for Israel to issue a statement saying, and repeating this a thousand times, that it respects the sovereignty of every other country, and since Syria is in the eye of the storm, Israel and Jews must respet the sovereignty of Syria.
On a matter of principle Israela nd Israelis must oppose the interventions of the US in Syria, interventions aimed at overthrowing Assad.
Now also Assad happens to be a secular leaning leader.
This is as everybody knows why the Syrian Christians are part of the large section of the population of Syria which has continued to defend Assad.
This feeling for the secular stands in total conflict with the feeling for Sharia. Sharia is Fascism, a modern form of Fascism, because it is being integrated into the Fascism of the US Governments, and of the EU Governments, and the EU Bureaucracy as a whole.
It beggars belief that any Jew living today, or any Israeli, or Israel supporter, would not defend Assad IN THESE CONDITIONS.
Does this make Israel a friend of Assad or vice versa? Anybody who thinks like this really need to go to political primary school.
Alliances are made and positions of political principle are taken in situations of concrete events. Leon Trotsky defended Haile Selassie against Mussolini and the Nazis. Did this make Trotsky a political defender of the despotism of Selassie?
Israel has had the means to destroy the plutonium enrichment of Iran years ago. It did not and allowed these Fascists to taunt Israel and Jews through its Holocaust Denial.
The same with Hamas and Hizbullah. We all know that Israeli leaders were given the green light by Bush to destroy these Antisemites once and for all and Israel politically speaking could not do that or take the decision to fight to the end.
Is this displacement, over Syria, hiding the constant betrayals of the Jews, their own people. I am certain so.