WarSclerotic

Israel a safe haven for Arabs – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Israel is only place in Middle East where Arabs are entitled to full democratic rights

Eddie Yair Fraiman

The Tunisian revolution began when a green grocer, Mohamed Bouazizi, self-immolated after suffering from severe police harassment. Through this brave, desperate act, he was transformed into the symbol of the new Arab revolution. Reflecting on Bouazizi’s ultimate act of protest, one can hardly conceive of what atmosphere and surroundings would compel an individual to resort to such an extreme.

The Arab states in the Middle East are ruled by dictators who act without mercy towards their own people and deprive them of their basic civil democratic rights. The anger rooted in decades of oppression and repression has finally bubbled up to the surface and erupted in the so-called “Arab Spring,” the wave of revolution and protest sweeping the region.

This cathartic expression of Arab peoples demanding their rights has in turn been met not with reform or concession, but with brutal, bloody crackdowns. The images broadcast from our regional neighbors are hard to watch: Live fire directed at protesters with lethal intentions in Syria and Yemen; missile fire on rebel and civilian positions in Libya; shelling, rape and mass killings of civilians by regime forces in Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

Civilian protests and freedom of expression are basic principles integral to and respected in any advanced state. The violence unleashed against protesters is antithetical to these important values, but reflective of the old patterns that Arab regimes have consistently employed; brutality and political repression have been the hallmark of Arab political control for more than half a century.

Even those states which offer some democratic privileges to their citizens are in fact engaged in a type of political theater – their elections are farcical in that the despotic leadership fails to allow any real pluralism. Opposition groups are denied true free expression and a real, effective voice.

Full civil rights

The extreme events we witnessed in recent weeks are contrary to all democratic and enlightenment principles. But they are the expected response from regimes that have already long demonstrated their total disregard for human rights and international values. Exactly as happened after Hamas took control of the Gaza strip in June 2007, these regimes have shown the inevitable outcome that results when non- and anti-democratic forces are given free rein over their populations.

Perhaps ironically, the only place in the Middle East where Arabs enjoy full democratic rights is the State of Israel. Arab citizens of Israel take for granted their freedom of movement, freedom of speech, the right to elect and be elected, freedom of assembly and protest – in short, all the individual and collective rights that are the essential and unassailable prerogatives of any citizen in any democratic state.

These rights don’t exist in any Arab state, but in Israel all of us, Jewish and Arab citizens alike, receive full civil rights. Everyone is equal in the eyes of Israeli law; all receive national insurance, education and national health care. Israel’s Arab citizens are also afforded affirmative action measures in educational institutions and government offices.

A poll published two months ago showed that a majority of east Jerusalem Arabs prefer to stay under Israeli rule rather than come under Palestinian Authority control. Many claimed they would be willing to leave their homes and relocate into Israel if their cities are transferred to PA control. Those living in Jerusalem are familiar with the phenomenon of east Jerusalem residents moving into Jewish neighborhoods – a trend in large part fueled by the fear that certain Arab communities in the city may be turned over to the PA. Apparently, Palestinian Arabs understand what we Israelis have often forgotten in recent years – the uniqueness of the state of Israel in the wild east.

Maybe the revolution in the Arab world will bring change, and the death and slaughter will bring about freedom of expression and, eventually, democracy. Alternatively, Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which represent a significant portion of the opposition, may take power, and true democracy will remain a distant dream.

One thing is certain: Israeli Arabs have nothing to worry about. They can freely exercise their democratic rights, and nobody will shoot them in the streets.

The writer is a member of the Young Likud

Syria neighbors fear future without Assad family | Reuters.

(Reuters) – From Israel to Iran, Syria’s neighbors are starting to contemplate the possibility of a future without the Assad family as Lords of Damascus, and, whether friends or foes, some don’t like what they see.

Indeed, some are in denial about what they are witnessing.

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’ite movement widely seen as an Iranian proxy in the Middle East, purports to believe the government of President Bashar al-Assad is putting down an insurrection by armed gangs of Salafi or Sunni Muslim fanatics.

In its report of the Syrian army’s assault on the southern city of Deraa, epicenter of the revolt which began last month, Al Manar, Hezbollah’s television, stuck to the official version that the army responded to citizens’ pleas to put an end to “killings and terrorizing operations by extremist groups.”

Hezbollah greeted with glee uprisings that overthrew dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt and championed the rights of Bahraini protesters against Saudi military intervention to quash Shi’ite demonstrations.

But it is distinctly unenthusiastic about the risk of losing the support of a Syrian government which is not only its main protector but the conduit for arms supplies from Iran.

Tehran, which regards Syria as a close ally in a mainly Sunni-dominated region suspicious of non-Arab Shi’ite Iran, has called the revolt in Syria “a Zionist plot.”

Yet Israel too seems deeply uneasy about any change in the status quo.

Although they are still formally at war, Syria under the current president and his late father, Hafez al-Assad, has maintained a stable border with the Jewish state since 1973 even though Israel still occupies the Golan Heights.

FEAR OF ISLAMISTS

Israel’s fear — voiced more openly by commentators plugged in to its security establishment than by politicians — is that a successful uprising might replace firm Baath party rule with a more radical government, or one less able or willing to keep radical forces on a leash.

Although Assad sponsors Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, he has played a cautious hand.

Behind the strident Arabist rhetoric and ties with Tehran he has kept the option of peace with Israel in play and sought acceptance by Western powers.

“The implications are enormous and totally unpredictable,” said Lebanon-based Middle East analyst Rami Khouri.

“What makes Syria distinctive is that the regime and the system have close structural links with every conflict or player in the region: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, America, Iraq, Turkey. In all these (cases) there is a Syrian link.”

Demonstrations have spread across the country and grown in intensity, he said, and protesters who began calling for reform of the system were now demanding “the overthrow of the regime.”

At the back of many minds is the experience of Iraq, plunged into years of chaos and sectarian savagery after the US-led invasion in 2003 and removal of Saddam Hussein.

“Everybody in the region is concerned about the destabilization of Syria, even those who don’t like Assad, because there is one thing he brings to the region: a certain kind of predictability and stability,” Khouri said.

“He maintained the truce along the Syrian-Israeli border, people know how his government behaves. Nobody knows what will happen afterwards.”

Alex Fishman, a military affairs journalist for Israel’s best-selling daily Yedioth Ahronoth, summed up Israeli apprehension after the Syrian army stormed into Deraa.

“However odd it may sound, the Israeli establishment has a certain sentiment for the Assad family. They kept their promises throughout the years and even talked about an arrangement with Israel on their terms,” he wrote.

“It’s hard to part with a comfortable old slipper, but the top members of the political and security establishment believe that the Syrian regime, in its current format, will change within weeks or months,” Fishman said.

He added: “The sole interest guiding Israel’s conduct is: if what is happening in Syria will ultimately weaken the Damascus-Iran-Hezbollah axis — we’ll come out ahead.”

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON

For Hezbollah and Iran, losing Assad would certainly be a big blow.

“If it (Syria) splits into mini-satellite states that will be bad news for everybody,” Khouri said, suggesting that as in Iraq this might provide an opening for al Qaeda militants.

Across the border in Lebanon, arena of a sectarian civil war in 1975-90 that sucked in regional and world powers and left Syria in control for 29 years, people are also worried.

Any prospect of a new sharpening of tensions between Sunnis and Shi’ites, Arabs and Kurds, or Christians and Muslims, all simmering across the region after being brought to the boil by Iraq, produces shudders.

“I don’t think any wise man is not worried about what happens in Syria because it is a neighbor,” said Talal Salman, editor of Beirut’s daily as-Safir.

“Any earthquake in Syria will shake Lebanon with its fragile make-up. Syria’s stability is in our interest.”

For now, Assad has decided to follow in the footsteps of his father and resort to military force, not reform, to put down the protests at a cost so far of more than 400 lives, according to human rights groups.

Monday’s deployment of tanks in Deraa looks like an indicator of what is to come. A source close to the Syrian military said Assad and his security establishment had taken a decision to wage war on protesters across the country.

But Ali al-Atassi, a prominent Syrian activist whose father was a former president jailed for 22 years by the elder Assad, said “another Hama” was impossible.

In 1982, Hafez al-Assad sent in the army to crush an armed lslamist uprising, killing of up to 30,000 people.

“Syria has reached a turning point. It cannot go back to where it was,” said Atassi.

He said the Western habit of accommodating dictatorships in return for stability was no longer valid.

“In Tunis, Egypt and elsewhere for years, Arab leaders and the West gave the Arab people a binary choice: stability or chaos; despotism or Islamism.

“After what happened in Tunis and Egypt, we discovered that there is a third option which is the democratic way. Sure, the Islamists will play a role in it, but they will not have the leading role,” Atassi said.

While many analysts argue that life after Assad would be hazardous or that he may prove impossible to remove, others say a relatively smooth transition is imaginable over time because Damascus has institutions that can shoulder responsibility.

They include the army, whose backbone is Sunni although key posts are controlled by members of Assad’s Alawite minority.

What most observers now dismiss is the possibility of reforms substantial enough to meet popular demands.

Even if Assad wanted to enact wide-scale reforms, they argue, he lacks the power to prevail over entrenched interests in the security forces and military intelligence.

“He is the prisoner of a certain structure and at the same time part of it,” Atassi said.

“The next 2-3 weeks are really critical. They will determine whether he will remain in power or whether his regime will collapse,” Khouri told Reuters.

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-Is Iran a Role Model for Arab Revolutions?.

Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall

• From Iran’s point of view, recent developments, especially in Egypt (long considered in the West as an anchor of stability and the initiator of a peace treaty with Israel), represent an improvement in Iran’s strategic status.

• Moreover, recent events have focused all attention on the Middle East arena and removed Iran’s nuclear program from the spotlight. The increase in the price of oil to over $100 a barrel has also led to the erosion of the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran (whose utility has yet to be proven).

• The Chief of Staff of Iran’s Joint Armed Forces, Maj. Gen. Seyyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said that the Islamic wave sweeping the region marks the beginning of a process that will end with the downfall of Israel, and Zionists fleeing to their countries of origin. He added that signs of such fear are already clearly visible on the faces of Israeli leaders.

• After the U.S. overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 2003, Iran felt itself to be under siege. Now, Tehran sees itself on the way to completing a regional “siege” of Israel – with Hizbullah in the north and Hamas in the south. Iran also believes that Jordan to the east will join the waves of protest, marking the fall of another nation that signed a peace treaty with Israel.

• The collapse of the old Arab order in the moderate Sunni countries of the Middle East is, at least in the short-to-medium term, favorable to Tehran and has significantly improved that country’s geo-strategic status and its ability to promote an ambitious Shiite pan-Islamic agenda.

• Iran is taking advantage of the current commotion in the Arab world and Western confusion to intensify its intervention, influence, and meddling in regions that were formerly under U.S. and Western influence, by deploying its Al-Quds force (a special unit for “exporting” the Islamic revolution beyond Iranian borders), while also exploiting the assets of Hizbullah, Syria, and Hamas.

The Breakdown of the Pro-Western Arab Regimes

The historic shake-up that has swept the Middle East, overturning the order that had existed for decades, caught Iran in the midst of celebrating the 32nd anniversary of the Islamic revolution. Although Iran was not the motivating force behind the various revolutions in Sunni Arab regimes, Iranian leaders took the credit.

From Iran’s point of view, recent developments, especially in Egypt (long considered in the West as an anchor of stability and the initiator of a peace treaty with Israel), represent an improvement in Iran’s strategic status, at least in the short term. For Iran, the downfall of pro-Western Sunni Arab regimes and the overthrow of their rulers has a direct impact on the process of regional empowerment and reflects the strength of Iran’s message to Arab nations over the heads of their rulers.

Iran perceives Hizbullah’s domination of Lebanon, the Hamas takeover in Gaza, the continued advancement of the Iranian nuclear program, and now revolutions in the Arab world as all denoting the success of its Islamic revolution. Moreover, recent events have focused all attention on the Middle East arena and removed Iran’s nuclear program from the spotlight. The increase in the price of oil to over $100 a barrel has also led to the erosion of the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran (whose utility has yet to be proven).

Pan-Arabism Out, Pan-Islam In

Almost nothing remains of the “moderate” Sunni Arab camp. The few moderates that are left fear for their positions and are busy trying to maintain stability in the internal arena. Against this background we see Iranian warships being dispatched to the region via the Suez Canal, carrying not only a military but also a political and strategic message.

Furthermore, recent events have effectively blocked pan-Arabism and the establishment of a unified moderate Arab camp that might serve as a counter-weight to the Iranian rejectionist and defying camp. With the Western overthrow of the last symbol of Arabism and Arab strength – Saddam Hussein – no charismatic Arab leaders now remain or are likely to appear any time soon.

Tehran Hastens to Fill the Void

Iran (and Turkey too) now seeks to fill the resulting void, serving as an Islamic model of opposition and independence. While Sunni nations are likely to be preoccupied with establishing new governments at home, Iran will continue to underline its own Islamic style as an overall ideological-political framework or model for the establishment of a new order in the Middle East. Pan-Islamic beliefs, whether Iranian or Turkish in nature, will most likely permeate the newly emerging Middle East. At the same time, Iran will also continue to pursue activities in Africa and South America (where Hizbullah, Iran’s proxy, has increased its drug-smuggling activities to the U.S.)¹ as it attempts to challenge the West on those fronts too.

Iran believes that the growth of popular movements opposing Sunni Arab regimes (especially Bahrain, see below) has produced conditions that enable it to further expand its own regional influence. It is expected to step up the use of its Al-Quds force (a special unit designated for  subversive activity and “exporting” the Islamic revolution beyond Iran’s borders) in collaboration with Lebanese Hizbullah to intensify its meddling in Arab countries currently undergoing internal unrest.

In the past, Iranian subversion and efforts to spread the Shia doctrine in Arab countries encountered opposition on the part of local security forces. Furthermore, countries that previously contained Hizbullah and Hamas and promoted the peace process (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan) have now been weakened and are preoccupied with problems at home, while Iran is vigorously cementing its status as leader of the camp opposed to the peace process and American-Western intervention in the region.

The Iranian Press Sees the Destabilization of Israel

Many Iranian spokesmen and analysts see recent events as a catalyst leading to Israel’s destabilization in the region, in light of a weakening U.S. position and that country’s desertion of regional allies, particularly Egypt. According to the Iranian press, the Muslim Brotherhood and other political groups in Egypt must now expose the (negative) role of the United States and Israel in everything connected with (in their words): “Mubarak’s crimes against the Egyptian people.” There are further claims that President Obama, for whom the Egyptian revolution was a harsh blow, is now trying, at almost any cost, to prevent it from spreading quickly to other areas under the rule of America’s allies.

The Iranian press – always highly critical of Egyptian rulers who are seen as responsible for peace with Israel, called upon Egypt’s new leaders to try “the sweet experiment which many nations around the world are observing” – freedom from Western influence.² In similar vein, Iranian newspapers describe the fall of U.S.-dependent regimes as striking a severe blow to the United States and Israel.³ The Chief of Staff of Iran’s Joint Armed Forces, Maj. Gen. Seyyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said that the Islamic wave sweeping the region marks the beginning of a process that will end with the downfall of Israel, and Zionists fleeing to their countries of origin. He added that signs of such fear are already clearly visible on the faces of Israeli leaders.⁴

The Great Shia Eruption

At the same time, Iran may seek to exploit the current fragility of the Sunni Arab world to establish Shia strongholds in Sunni Arab areas, although its aspirations in this area are usually covert. Iran is likewise taking advantage of the U.S. liberation of Iraq – although Iraqi Shiites differ from the Iranian model and generally demand a separation between religion and state – to restore Shia power in the Islamic world. Iran’s first success was recorded in Lebanon with the establishment of a Hizbullah-backed government, followed by waves of protest in predominantly Shia Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia.

The Iranian state media in English (Press TV) and Arabic (Al-Alam News Network), both directed at non-Iranian audiences, provide wide coverage of the events and underscore protests in Shia areas throughout the Arab world.

From Siege to Counter-Attack

The shake-up in the traditional Arab order reinforces the Iranian leaders’ sense of justice in their own system and cause. After the U.S. overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 2003, Iran felt itself to be under siege, with Afghanistan to the east, Iraq to the south, the Gulf States also to the south, and Azerbaijan to the north. It now feels better placed to break out of that siege and even make inroads into neighboring regions as well as other parts of the world.

In fact, Tehran sees itself on the way to completing a regional “siege” of Israel – with Hizbullah in the north and Hamas in the south. Iran also believes that Jordan to the east will join the waves of protest, marking the fall of another nation that signed a peace treaty with Israel.

The Historic Islamic Mission

In recent months President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frequently promoted Iranian-style revolutionary Islam as a viable alternative. At a press conference on February 23 to mark the unveiling of a supercomputer of Iranian manufacture, Ahmadinejad announced that “the world is on the verge of huge, worldwide changes and developments, from Asia to Africa, from Europe to North America.” He also called for a restructuring of the Iranian Foreign Ministry to adapt to “the historic mission of the Iranian nation today. Today we need passion, character and drive in our foreign policy. We need to employ all our capabilities and talents and all the new ideas of the revolution should back and guide our foreign policy.”⁵

In his messianic style, Ahmadinejad referred to a “huge and ever-growing wave,” claiming that developments in the Arab world represent only one part of this and that “we are waiting for that main upheaval and the great wave which will uproot all of those deceptions in the world.”

He called on Arab national leaders to respect the people’s desire for reform and change: “Why do they perform so badly that the people are forced to put pressure on them and call for reforms?” He also severely criticized Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi⁶ and condemned the harsh stance that Gaddafi adopted to suppress his people: “How can a leader bomb his own people and then say that whoever protests will be killed? This is unacceptable.”⁷ The Iranian Red Crescent Society even offered to send help to the Libyan people.⁸

Ahmadinejad also spoke critically of the West, accusing it of trying to hold back progress, prosperity and development in other countries: “Material thinking represented by Marxism and Capitalism, both of which are the same, crushed the human truth and redirected people towards selfishness and material tendencies, but the Islamic revolution of Iran renewed the main identity and the true nature of people…the leaders of arrogance were shouting that they wanted to nip the revolution in the bud, but now the revolution has taken them by the throat in their own palaces. They are inactive and are retreating now and are opposed by free people who are moving on a perfect path and are putting pressure on them.”⁹

The Islamic Revolution as Role Model

The Iranian leadership sees the turmoil in Arab countries as an “Islamic awakening in the Arab world” against all “despotic” Arab rulers, who are seen as traitors to the Islamic Revolution initiated by Khomeini, and commends Iran’s steadfast resilience in the face of Western efforts to undermine and compromise its independence:

• In a Friday prayer sermon delivered on February 4 at Tehran University, religious leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said: “The Iranian nation is seeing for itself how its voice is heard in other regions of the world. Today’s events in North Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and certain other countries have another sense for the Iranian nation. They have special meaning….This is the same as an ‘Islamic awakening,’ which is the result of the victory of the big revolution of the Iranian nation.” The Iranian leader referred to Iran’s independence since the revolution and its lack of dependence on the West, saying: “The former Shah used to seek U.S. consultation in all affairs, which means dependence on the U.S.” Speaking of the uprising in Egypt, he remarked: “The Egyptian nation feels humiliated due to the support of Hosni Mubarak’s regime for Israel and following the U.S….the feeling of being humiliated was the reason for the Egyptian nation’s uprising.”¹⁰

• Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that the outbreak of an Islamic awakening across the Middle East is the direct result of the determination and resilience demonstrated by Iran over many years in its struggle against the West. He described the people’s uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia and the pro-democracy protest underway in Libya and Bahrain as miracles, with 32 years of Iranian revolution behind them. Salehi drew a comparison between the Iranian revolution of 1979 and recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa, claiming that those nations view Iran as a role model.¹¹

• The Speaker of the Majlis (the Iranian parliament) pointed out that the Western superpowers played no role in the people’s revolutions currently taking place in the Middle East. He described the weakening of the U.S. grasp in the region, saying that for years it supported dictatorial regimes around the world, but must now withdraw in the face of the widespread popular uprisings which represent a kind of Judgement Day for the U.S.¹²

• The head of Iran’s national broadcasting network (IRIB) said that “the slogans, inclinations and demands of the people during the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have all been inspired by the Islamic Revolution (of Iran)….What is more important is that today’s Iran has become a model for the people of those countries, of which the Westerners are very scared. Western politicians, writers and analysts have also acknowledged this influence in their speeches and articles.”¹³

At home, Iran successfully managed to forcibly contain the public protest which again threatened to erupt following the internal upheavals in the Arab world. The Majlis (parliament) issued a statement noting: “The sorrowful incidents which have occurred in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Morocco and the merciless killing of people by the despotic rulers are reminiscent of the crimes perpetrated by all dictators who tried to remain in power throughout history….We, the representatives of the great Iranian nation, condemn these crimes and once again announce that we strongly back the Islamic nations’ campaigns.”¹⁴

First We Take Bahrain

Iran’s recent successes, growing confidence, and progress towards a nuclear weapon inspire hope in the hearts of oppressed Shia populations throughout the  Arab world, particularly in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. Iran is investing resources in furthering this activity, with a focus on the Revolutionary Guards’ Al-Quds force. Lebanese Hizbullah activists are also working on Iran’s behalf in Iraq, the Gulf States, and Egypt to disseminate the Shia message and encourage Shiites to oppose the regimes, while also trying to convert Sunnis to Shiism.

In this context, Bahrain represents the soft underbelly. A number of senior Iranian commentators have referred to Bahrain in the past as the 14th Iranian province, including Ali Akbar Nateq-Nuri, former Speaker of the Iranian Majlis, and Hossein Shriatmadari, editor-in-chief of the conservative Kayhan newspaper, who is close to the Iranian leader.¹⁵ Iran has claimed sovereignty over the island kingdom of Bahrain since it was under Persian rule for two centuries beginning in 1602. When Britain decided to withdraw its troops from the Gulf in 1968, Iran renewed its claim of sovereignty, but in a 1970 plebiscite sponsored by the United Nations, the island’s residents decided on independence rather than annexation to Iran. In 1971 Bahrain was recognized as an independent country. Thereafter, the Shah abandoned Persian claims, but these have been heard again since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Egyptian President Mubarak visited Bahrain in 2008 to express his support against a background of Iranian threats.

The Sunni Bahraini royal family fears repeated attempts at destabilization by Iran, using Shia opposition elements. Shiites represent over 70 percent of Bahrain’s population, some of whom are Arab and some Persian. However, they do not serve in any positions of power or have any influence over what takes place in the kingdom. Some were arrested last year in a preventive action by security forces.

On two occasions, Bahrain accused Iran of subversion on Bahraini territory: in 1996 the kingdom exposed a local Hizbullah cell calling itself the Military Wing of Hizbullah-Bahrain, detained many of its operatives, and deported some. Similar claims arose in 1981 when Bahrain exposed the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain, which attempted to carry out a coup on its territory.

Now, in light of recent changes in the Arab world, the weakness of Arab leaders, and the renewal of protest in Bahrain, the kingdom fears a combination of stronger Iranian involvement and highly motivated demonstrators as a spin-off of the protest momentum in other Arab nations.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered at Bahrain, serving as a base to defend the Gulf States from an Iranian threat. The U.S. has urged Bahraini leaders to continue promoting reform and democratic processes in the kingdom. But at the same time it fears an Egyptian-style scenario, with the loss of this important base in the Persian Gulf. Iran has stepped up naval exercises in Gulf waters in recent years, while continuing to maintain dormant cells for terrorism and insurrection in Bahrain and other Gulf nations, awaiting the moment to order an upswing in Iranian subversive activity in those countries.

Tehran feels that now is the right time to step up its intervention in events in the Gulf States, especially among the Shia population. In nearby Saudi Arabia, there is a growing fear of a greater Shia challenge to the kingdom. A change of regime in Bahrain could result in greater marginalization of the United States in the Gulf and the further reinforcement of Iran’s status as a key force in the region, representing an intrinsic threat to the small Gulf States.

In summary, the collapse of the old Arab order in the moderate Sunni countries of the Middle East is, at least in the short-to-medium term, favorable to Tehran and has significantly improved that country’s geo-strategic status and its ability to promote an ambitious agenda, which it defines as “a change in regional equilibrium.” It is taking advantage of the current commotion in the Arab world and Western confusion to intensify its intervention and influence throughout the neighboring Persian Gulf, as well as in other regions that were formerly under U.S. and Western influence, while also exploiting the assets of Hizbullah, Syria, and Hamas.

*     *     *

Notes

1. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/21/hezbollah-working-with-cartels/

2. Resalat, February 20, 2011.

3. Quds, February 24, 2011.

4. “Iran,” February 26, 2011.

5. Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, January 31, 2011.

6. IRINN, February 23, 2011.

7. IRINN, February 23, 2011.

8. IRNA, February 23, 2011.

9. Fars News Agency, February 5, 2011.

10. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30222191

11. http://presstv.com/detail/166867.html

12. IRNA, February 25, 2011.

13. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167002.html

14. Mehr News, February 23, 2011.

15. In July 2007, the editor of Kayhan called Bahrain an Iranian province. “The governments of the Gulf States were established as a result of the direct intervention of world (Western) arrogance and are accused by their populations of collaboration with the Zionist entity…they know that the earthquake that happened in Iran (the Islamic Revolution) will, sooner or later, bring about the collapse of their illegal regimes.” In another article, the editor wrote: “A few decades ago Bahrain was an Iranian province, but split away from Iran because of the agreement signed between the Shah and the U.S. and British governments.”

In Syria, Assad must exit the stage – CNN.com.

Editor’s note: Salman Shaikh is director of the Brookings Institution’s Doha Center in Doha, Qatar. He focuses on mediation and conflict resolution in the Middle East and South Asia, and has also worked for the United Nations, including a post as a special adviser on the Middle East to the U.N. secretary-general. Brookings is a Washington-based nonprofit public policy think tank.

(CNN) — To say that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is in trouble is an understatement. His security forces, roaming paramilitary thugs and now his army –which on Monday entered the southern town of Daraa — have turned their guns and tanks on to the Syrian people. This is the response to an unprecedented uprising against the stale, corrupt and repressive Baathist security regime that Assad heads.

Assad’s tumultuous, 11-year rule — and the political experiment of modernization that it entailed — has proved to be a total failure. With the cycle of ever-increasing protests met by regime violence and then more funerals intensifying in all areas of the country, it is time for Assad, the “Hamlet” of the Arab world, to consider his future. It is time for him and those who influence him abroad to search for a swift and orderly exit.

The likelihood is that the departure of the regime’s figurehead would topple the entire system. The behavior of a few key constituencies — particularly the long-co-opted Sunni merchant elites of Aleppo and Damascus, and the entrenched militias and security agencies associated with Bashar’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assaf Shawkat, and others — will determine how quick and how bloody that collapse is.

What is certain is that we are reaching the tipping point for a regime that lost its legitimacy decades ago.

400 die in Syria violence, group says

It did not have to be this way. At the start of his presidency in June 2000, there were high hopes that Assad would be instrumental in the modernization and democratic transition of his country.

In the months that became known as the “Damascus Spring,” intellectuals, civil society leaders and political notables in Damascus, Aleppo and smaller towns were discussing the future under Assad. With Baathist regime figures also taking part in the dialogue, there was hope that the Baathist system would evolve peacefully after 29 stifling years.

But then came the crackdown. Assad and the Baathists decided to pull back hard. The regime imprisoned the leaders of the Damascus Spring and closed any space for change through national dialogue.

In October 2005 came the Damascus Declaration, an unprecedented expression of a democratic future for Syria that upheld human rights and the rights of minorities. In assembling a broad coalition of Syrians around a transition to an Assad-less future, this movement gave the lie to the regime’s argument that in its absence, chaos would reign.

Opinion: World must stand with Syrian people

What distinguished the initiative and scared the regime was that it effectively united the main opposition trends and parties inside and outside Syria. These included more than 250 opposition figures as well as political parties and trends that were both secular and religious, Arab and Kurdish.

By 2007, however, Assad moved to arrest 40 of the leading figures behind the Declaration. Although more than half of these were released, the regime had forced the movement into disarray. Facing a choice between serious dialogue with those advocating a democratic transition or siding with the Baathist security regime and his family, Assad once again chose the latter. Faced with adversity, he and they budged not an inch.

As late as the past week, many have speculated that Assad faces a stark choice: “reform or die.” In fact the Assad of today has left himself with no choice at all other than brutal force. For the majority of Syrians, especially the youth who make up 60% of the country, it is time to seek freedom or death.

As external debate rages about whether the young president is capable of genuine reform, observers are in danger of missing a key message — that an important bloc of Assad’s own people have already given up on “Assad the reformer.” Faced with such existential choices, we are likely to see a bloodbath in Syria. Syria is fast becoming the next major test of the international community’s resolve to protect citizens from their rulers.

Until recently, a striking alliance including the U.S., Iran, Israel, France, Russia, Turkey and Qatar believed Assad was the best man for Syria. Faced with mounting evidence that Assad and his Baathists have no choice but to suppress the protests, it is precisely this international alliance, minus Iran and Israel, that now has to persuade Assad to quit Syria.

It is notable that after the killings of more than 100 protesters on Friday, both the U.S. and Turkey have stepped up their condemnation of the regime. The U.S., which already designates Syria as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” is reportedly examining placing further targeted sanctions on regime figures. Europe, the leading trading partner of Syria, needs to follow suit and slap targeted sanctions on leading regime figures.

However, these measures will likely not be enough. Turkey and the U.S., as well as Qatar and France, need to work quietly and purposefully to convince Assad that his efforts to reform the Baathist regime have failed and that he should exit the stage.

If Assad were to leave, he could be offered the prospect of escaping prosecution for egregious violations of international law and international humanitarian law being committed by his security forces. He should be told that were he to stay, he would likely join Libya’s Col. Moammar Gadhafi in the dock of the International Criminal Court.

In parallel, the U.N. Human Rights Council should invoke its special procedures and urgently start an investigation into the situation in Syria. The U.N. Security Council needs to go beyond issuing statements condemning the violence. It needs to send a clear reminder to Assad that he and his regime must protect civilians or to face the consequences.

In a now-infamous interview with The Wall Street Journal in January, Assad confidently predicted, “If you didn’t see the need for reform before what happened in Tunisia or Egypt, then it is too late for reform.” It was a perceptive statement from a young, intelligent and largely popular leader.

However, the tragedy for him and his people is that in saying so, Assad was overlooking his own deeply disappointing record in modernizing the stagnant, repressive and corrupt Baathist security regime he inherited in 2000. As more and more of Syria’s people revolt against his rule and that of his regime, Assad’s words have likely become his political obituary.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Salman Shaikh.

The epic Arab battle reaches Syria.

By Rami G. Khouri

Syria is now the critical country to watch in the Arab world, after the homegrown regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt, and the imminent changes in Yemen and Libya.

The Syrian regime headed by President Bashar Assad is now seriously challenged by a combination of strong forces within and outside the country. His current policy of using force to quell demonstrators and making minimal reform promises has lost him credibility with many of his own citizens, largely due to his inability to respond to his citizens’ reasonable demands for democratic governance. His downfall is not imminent, but is now a real possibility.

The next few weeks will be decisive for Mr. Assad, because in the other Arab revolts the third-to-sixth weeks of street protests were the critical moment that determined whether the regime would collapse or persist. Syria is now in its fourth week. Having lost ground to street demonstrators recently, the Assad-Baathist-dominated secular Arab nationalist state’s response in the weeks ahead will likely determine whether it will collapse in ruins or regroup and live on for more years.

Mr. Assad should recognize many troubling signs that add up to a threatening trend. The number and size of demonstrations have grown steadily since late March, making this a nationwide revolt. Protesters’ demands have hardened, as initial calls for political reform and anti-corruption measures now make way for open calls for the overthrow of the regime and the trial of the ruling elite. Some portraits and statues of the current and former president are being destroyed, and government buildings attacked. More protesters openly call for the security services to be curbed – an unprecedented and important sign of the widespread popular loss of fear of security agencies that always bodes ill for such centralized systems of power.

Many of the Syrian protest leaders and human rights groups are coordinating to form a unified movement that makes coherent demands of the regime, reflecting widespread indigenous citizen concerns that cannot be credibly dismissed as the work of Islamic radicals or foreign agents. Shooting the protesters has failed to stop them, and has only brought out larger crowds on subsequent days – especially when mourners in funerals for yesterday’s dead are themselves shot dead. A few public figures have resigned in protest at the use of arms against demonstrators, and the several reform concessions by Mr. Assad seem to have been widely dismissed.

Mr. Assad’s big problem is that Syrians continue to express greater populist defiance of the regime, rather than compliance with either its political promises or its hard police measures. The core elements of the regime that he and his father have managed for over 40 years are now all being challenged openly and simultaneously, including the extended Mr. Assad family, the Baath Party apparatus, the government bureaucracy, and the numerous security agencies. These form a multi-layered but integrated power system whose center of gravity and policy coordination is the president. We are unlikely to see a Tunisian or Egyptian model of the security agencies abandoning the president to drift and be thrown out of power, while they remain in place. In Syria, either the entire system asserts itself and remains in control – with or without real reforms – or it is changed in its entirety.

Here is where the Assad government and power structure play on some of their assets. The two most significant ones are that: 1) most Syrians do not want to risk internal chaos or sectarian strife (a la Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia) and might opt to remain with the Assad-dominated system that has brought them stability without democracy; and, 2) any changes in regime incumbency or policies in Syria will have enormous impact across the entire region and beyond, given Syria’s structural links or ongoing political ties with every major conflict and actor in the region, especially Lebanon and Hezbullah, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Palestine and Hamas, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Regime overthrow in Syria will trigger significant, cumulative and long-lasting repercussions in the realms of Arab-Israeli, Arab-Iranian, inter-Arab and Arab-Western relations, with winners and losers all around.

For some, this makes the Assad regime the Middle Eastern equivalent of the banks that were too big to allow to collapse during the American economic crisis three years ago, because the spillover effect would be too horrible to contemplate. The specter of sectarian-based chaos within a post-Assad Syria that could spread to other parts of the Middle East is frightening to many people. Yet many, perhaps most, Syrians indicate with their growing public protests that they see their current reality as more frightening – especially the lack of democracy, widespread corruption, human rights abuses, one-party rule, economic and environmental stress, excessive security dominance and burgeoning youth unemployment.

The epic battle between regime security and citizen rights that has characterized the modern Arab world for three long and weary generations enters its most important phase in Syria in the coming few weeks, with current Arab regional trends suggesting that citizens who collectively and peacefully demand their human and civil rights cannot be denied.

(This article was first published in Lebanon’s The Daily Star on April 26, 2011.)

Tanks seen around Damascus as rights group says death toll hits 453.

Mutiny in the Syrian army? – Opinion – Al Jazeera English.

With increasing military defections, the Syrian regime’s violent crackdown may have backfired, analyst says.

n the early morning of April 25, the city of Deraa was invaded from all four corners by units affiliated with the 4th Division, which falls under the direct leadership of Maher Al-Assad, and the 5th Division, led by Muhammad Saleh Al-Rifai, with reinforcement from the 132 Battalion.

Shortly thereafter, reports began trickling then pouring in speaking of a mutiny in the units affiliated with 5th Division and troops from these units standing up to and halting the advance of units from the 4th Division trying to reach Al-Omary Mosque in central Deraa.

At first, many of us thought this might be a reference to a few more defections, as had transpired two weeks ago, but the reports continue to come from different sources and eyewitnesses that we managed to reach all through the day, leading us to believe that there might indeed be something worth monitoring here.

If such a mutiny has indeed taken place so early in the game, then Assad’s military gambit seems to be backfiring, a development that could spark a wider division within the army in the next few hours and days, with all different sorts of implications for the protest movement, depending on how this internal conflict plays out.

If, on the other hand, the reports turn out to be nothing more than exaggerations and wishful thinking, then the protest movement will still have a way to go before producing a significant impact on the structure and power base of the regime, and the challenge will be to keep on message and peaceful all the way through despite the mounting violence on part of the Assads.

It is important to note at this stage, however, the sheer falsehood of the regime allegations of widespread violence on part of the protesters and Salafist designs.

The videos we have clearly show protesters facing tanks with rocks not guns. Had Salafists really been present in the city and planning to establish an independent Islamic emirate, why did not they do so in three weeks of peace they had, and do they disappear all of a sudden, with their alleged caches of weapons, each time the army and security forces show up?

One potential answer is that regime is dealing here about Salafist infiltrators trained by an undead Harry Houdini, or armed with Klingon cloaking devices. The other answer, and pardon me for finding it more likely, is that regime officials is lying just like their counterparts in Libya, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt.

Be that as it may, despite the violent crackdown in Deraa and the reported two dozen deaths there, not to mention, and the incursions by security forces into the coastal city of Jableh and the suburbs of Mouaddamiyyah, Douma and Barzeh in Damascus, the fatalities that were reported there, and the hundreds of arrests, protesters still managed to organize sizeable demonstration in Homs, Darayyah and Al-Tal, etc.

The protesters are a very determined lot, and might just prove to be a tougher nut to crack than the regime.

EU members to explore ‘all options’ on Syria sanctions.

By REUTERS AND JPOST.COM STAFF 
04/27/2011 14:04

Report: US Treasury to release names of officials to be targeted by sanctions, including Assad’s brother; 453 reported dead in clashes between army and anti-gov’t protesters; UNHRC to hold special session on Syria.

BRUSSELS – European Union governments will discuss the possibility of imposing sanctions against Syria on Friday, with various measures being explored, a spokesman for the EU executive said on Wednesday.

“There will be a meeting on Friday … All options are on the table,” foreign affairs spokesman Michael Mann told reporters at a European Commission briefing.

If agreed, EU sanctions would likely start with asset freezes and travel restrictions against key officials, diplomats have said.

Also on Wednesday, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it had collected the names of at least 453 civilians killed during almost six weeks of pro-democracy protests in Syria.

Berlin announced that it is in favor of European Union sanctions against Syria’s leadership and wants Damascus to hold to account those responsible for violence against demonstrators.

“The possibility of enacting EU sanctions against the Syrian leadership will be examined, we will strongly support such sanctions,” German government spokesman Steffen Seibert told a regular news conference.

“Such sanctions would entail possible travel restrictions for Syrian political leaders, asset freezes, and the freezing of the economic aid that flows from Europe to Syria,” he added.

Seibert also said that Germany wanted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to release the many Syrians who had been arbitrarily arrested after troops and tanks were deployed to crush the uprising.

“We call on President Assad to enter into dialogue with his citizens instead of shooting them, and to come to an accommodation,” Seibert added.

‘Assad’s brother tops list of Syrians hit by US sanctions’

Maher Assad, brother of Syrian President Bashar Assad is likely to top the list of Syrian targets of US economic sanctions, Al Arabiya reported on Wednesday.

The sanctions, which Washington is considering, would freeze assets of Syrian officials in American banks, according to Al Arabiya. The US Treasury Department reportedly plans to release the list of officials to be hit by sanctions before Friday.

Assad’s brother, commander of the Syrian Army’s Fourth Division, is considered the second most powerful man in Syria.

In addition, the UN Human Rights Council will hold a special session on the deteriorating situation in Syria on Friday, after enough states backed a US request, a UN statement said on Wednesday.

The US request to convene an urgent session of the 47-member Geneva forum was endorsed by 16 member states including Britain, France, and the United States, it said. No Arab countries were among those requesting the session, which requires one-third of the forum’s membership to hold.

Witnesses report seeing tanks, sniper fire

Witnesses said they saw at least 30 Syrian Army tanks on tank carriers seen moving on the Damacus Circular Highway on Wednesday.

Snipers intermittently shot into Deraa, a witness told CNN, adding that the situation is “worsening day after day.”

Syrian opposition group the National Initiative for Change called for democracy that will “safeguard the nation from falling into a period of violence, chaos and civil war.” The group said that its “massive grassroots revolution” will break Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, unless he makes democratic reforms, AP reported.

Without reform, the group reportedly said, “there is no alternative left for Syrians except to move forward along the same path as did the Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans before them.”

Syrian opposition vows to ‘break the regime’ – Middle East – Al Jazeera English.

Libya, Syria and Obama’s Double Standards | FrontPage Magazine.

(Truly sickening…  Obama’s going to let Assad butcher to his heart’s content? – JW )

Syria is an avowed enemy of the West, a strong candidate for membership in the Axis of Evil. Closely aligned with Iran, it is inherently hostile to Israeli and American interests, funds terror and is now slaughtering its own civilians. And yet, in the Obama White House, the ongoing chaos in Syria has been treated with limited interest. There is certainly none of the apparent umbrage that was directed at former Egyptian leader (and longtime U.S.-ally) Hosni Mubarak in his final days in power, and there is little worry that President Bashar Assad’s government will share the same fate as Gaddafi’s regime, which is being bombed by NATO for committing crimes very similar to the ones currently taking place in cities and towns across Syria.

If one were to use Libya as the standard for when Western intervention is warranted, Syria would certainly qualify. The military crackdown against anti-government protesters continues. Military forces loyal to President Assad have killed more than 400 civilians since March, with more than 100 of those occurring in the last week alone. Syrians have braved gunfire from soldiers to collect the bodies from the streets and to ensure they receive proper burials. The latter, especially, has proven dangerous: On Saturday, military snipers opened fire on a funeral procession for those killed by government forces, adding a reported nine more to the death toll.

Such use of military force against civilians is despicable, but not exactly out of character for the regime. Syria has been classified as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department since 1979, and has continued to support anti-Western groups active in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. It is also deeply involved in the destabilization of Lebanon, which Syria has long hoped to control. Assad’s regime, for example, is widely suspected of involvement, as is Hezbollah, in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri in 2005. Hariri had been critical of Syria’s influence in Lebanon, and was killed by a suicide bomber.

Syria has also dabbled in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In 2007, there was a strange series of news reports detailing Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace and firing munitions into an empty field. Before too long, it became public knowledge that what Syria hoped people thought was an empty field was actually a nuclear facility that the regime was secretly constructing with the help of the North Koreans. Once Israel and the United States became aware of its existence, the Israeli Air Force destroyed the facility in a surprise air attack. Syria denied that the facility had a military purpose and then refused to cooperate with the international inspectors sent to examine the rubble.

In short, Syria is just as devious and dangerous a regime as Libya, arguably more so, particularly insofar as Israel is concerned. And yet the West has decided to sit this one out.

President Obama has, of course, condemned the violence. On Saturday, he called for a halt on the use of force against unarmed protesters (the UN and some European countries have made similar statements). But beyond such boilerplate, there has been little said or done in response to the violence. Compare that to Libya, where a similarly unpleasant dictator, after ordering the use of force against protesting civilians, spent his Saturday dodging NATO missiles fired into his leadership compound, while the U.S. agreed to deploy armed unmanned drones to the country. There has been speculation that these American drones might be used specifically to locate and eliminate Muammar Gaddafi.

Aaron David Miller, a retired State Department advisor, correctly identified President Obama’s strategy in the Middle East as being akin to a game of whackamole — the administration is confronted by a series of problems popping up all over the region, and does its best to address each of them in turn, with no overarching strategy guiding the decisions. This has been frustrating to both critics outside the Obama administration and to doves within it. The United States has gone easy on Syria and Bahrain, demanded ally Mubarak step down in Egypt after several embarrassing missteps, and bombed Libya. Perhaps the simplest explanation is the one suggested by Foreign Policy magazine: The administration itself doesn’t know what to do, and its response to each emerging crisis depends largely on whichever internal faction won the debate that day.

On the other hand, the answer to why the administration’s foreign policy decisions appear so crudely ad hoc may be much more straightforward: Obama has always been eager to follow a different path than George W. Bush, especially with Iran. While Bush did not hesitate to criticize Iran and argue for democracy across the Middle East, Obama has preferred instead to reach out to hostile regimes in an effort to cultivate diplomatic ties. Iran and Syria are joined at the hip — there has even been evidence that Iranian security forces are assisting Syrian troops in their crackdown against protesters. Tehran is clearly worried that it might lose one of its primary allies in the Middle East, and with it, easy access to its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies. Strong American action against Syria would enrage Iran — something Obama has already shown himself hesitant to do.

Thus, the Obama administration has opted to employ a clear double standard in its response to the Syria crisis — one that is so jarring, that even many of the president’s liberal supporters have been unable to withhold their criticism. Token sanctions and the odd public statement condemning the violence are the least Obama can do to retain his pro-human rights credibility. His decision to do no more might be one of the few things that Syria, Iran and Obama could all agree on.

Matt Gurney is a columnist and editor at Canada’s National Post. He can be reached on Twitter @mattgurney.