February 5, 2010
Israel Threatens Assad with Regime Change
The Israeli government may be moving beyond its fear and loathing of a Syria governed by somebody other than Bashar Assad. For years, Jerusalem has been careful to avoid doing anything or even saying anything that might destabilize Damascus. But after Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, threatened Israel this week with a war that would be fought “inside your cities,” Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman snapped. “Not only will you lose the war,” he said to Assad, “you and your family will no longer be in power.”
There are good reasons to feel squeamish about the aftermath of regime change, whether it comes at the hands of Israelis or not. The same sectarian monster that stalks Lebanon and Iraq lives just under the floorboards in Syria. The majority of Syria’s people are Sunni Arabs, but 30 percent or so are Christians, Druze, Alawites, or Kurds. Assad himself is an Alawite, as are most of the elite in the ruling Baath Party, the secret police, and the military. Their very survival depends on keeping Syria’s sectarianism suppressed. The country could easily come apart without Assad’s government enforcing domestic peace at the point of a gun. This is a serious problem. It’s not Israel’s problem, but it’s a problem.
The Israelis have been worried about something else: that after Assad, Syria might be governed by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood organization or something that looks a lot like it. There’s no guarantee, though, that the Muslim Brothers would take over. They aren’t in power anywhere else in the Arab world. Even if they do succeed Assad, they couldn’t ramp up the hostility much. Assad’s is already the most hostile Arab government in the world. A replacement regime, especially one dominated by Sunnis rather than by minorities who lack legitimacy and feel they have something to prove, would likely gravitate toward the regional mainstream.
Millions of Syrians sympathize with the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re tired of being lorded over by secularists from a faith they consider heretical. Still, fundamentalist Sunni Arabs who try to impose some kind of theocracy will meet automatic resistance from the country’s Christians, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and secular and moderate Sunnis. Theocracy is hardly the norm in the Middle East anyway. Not a single Arab country — unless you consider Gaza a country — is governed by a religious regime like the one in Iran.
No dictatorship rules forever. The Alawite regime in Damascus will eventually be replaced, one way or another. Syria will have to reckon with its own demons sooner or later, and it will either hold together and muddle through, or it won’t. Just as every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, unstable countries fall apart in their own way. Only a fool would dismiss as irrelevant the sectarian bloodletting Iraq has suffered during the last several years, but Syria’s problems are its own, and a few critical ingredients that made Iraq into a perfect storm are missing.
Read the rest in Commentary Magazine.
Firstly, you seem to insinuate that the bravado in the most recent exchange of words is from Syria. However, you fail to mention Barak's original threat or his apology to Syria. You fail to mention Netanyahu trying to reign in Lieberman. You fail to mention the the negative reaction of the majority of the Knesset to Lieberman's comments. Most politicians in Israel seem to understand that Lieberman was the one that crossed the line. Did Moallem threaten Israel? Yes. Did it merit a response? Sure. Did Lieberman appear to the one who needs to pull back? Yes.
Secondly, your argument is that overthrowing Assad is a good idea despite the possible growth of sectarianism and/or MB? It is true that Assad has not been the most benevolent ruler (to put it lightly). He made life in Iraq much more difficult and should be watched with a suspicious eye by Israel. But for the very reasons you mention, a simple regime change is foolish. Because the minority Alawites are in positions of power now, a peaceful transition to Sunni rule is very unlikely. Furthermore, considering the recent diplomatic activity of Assad, Syria has forged closer ties with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and has rekindled ties with Lebanon. It is doubtful that the rest of the Middle East would be fine with Israel pulling down the Assad house.
You say that a Sunni led regime would gravitate to the regional norms. That may be true, but the process of getting to a peaceful Sunni-led government would be nearly as messy as in Iraq - Hezbollah and Iran would be sure to make it more difficult.
Your first objection is a little bit silly. Narrating everything that led up to this would require an entire article all by itself, and I didn't feel like regurgitating the news covered well enough by wire agencies. I don't write "he said, she said" pieces and never have.
Second, I didn't say overthrowing Assad would be a good idea. It would be quite a mess, and we seem to be in complete agreement as to why.
"Syria...has rekindled ties with Lebanon." Well, that's one way to put it. If you think Hariri is happy that he was forced to shake hands with the man who murdered his father, you have a very different way to looking at this subject than I do.
That said, I think Lieberman is a terrible FM and an embarrassment to Israel.
As for my first point, the use of a 'he said, she said' narration is simply to point out that the way you framed your article is misleading. The way you start your article makes it seem as though the recent spat between the two countries originated from Syrian aggression or unprovoked belligerence. Moallem and Assad were replying to Barak's comments about war. My point is simply that you seem to have taken Moallem's comment out of context, resulting in a more positive view of Lieberman.
Good point about Lebanon. Hariri and others might get some personal satisfaction from Assad being thrown to the curb, but the point remains that a messy Syria cannot help Lebanon.
I think it's clear to most reasonable observers that Assad is the belligerent in his foreign policy conflicts, not Israel, not Lebanon, and not Iraq.
I also think a messy Syria would be excellent for Lebanon. Terrible for everyday Syrians, though. I am unapologetically hostile to Syria's government and foreign policy, but entirely not interested in seeing average Joe Arabs killed in stupid sectarian warfare.
To be hostile and think about regime change as an observer is much different than doing so as a government official. Many Israeli politicians came out calling Lieberman agressive. My point is not that Syria does not have a belligerent foreign policy - it does. My point is that it is unfair to point to Syrian aggression without calling Lieberman aggressive.
To your point concerning Lebanon. Considering the ties between Syria and Lebanon, I find it hard to believe that a war overthrowing Assad would not include Hezbollah. That, of course, would mean a war with Lebanon. A new post-war Lebanon would be messier than Syria with many Lebanese blaming Hezbollah - not a bad thing, but one that could provoke more sectarian violence or worse.
On a side note, I see that you recommend 'Terror and Liberallism' by Paul Berman. I was wondering if you have ever written anything extensive on the book and its themes? That book has had a tremendous impact on my views of Islamist extremism and would love to hear your thoughts on it. Berman was supposed to have a follow up, 'The Flight of the Intellectuals' but it keeps getting delayed for some reason. Thanks.
I haven't written about Terror and Liberalism, but I think Paul Berman is a genius. I had lunch with him in Brooklyn a few years ago. Maybe I'll try to interview him next time I'm in New York.
crosspatch, I can't think of any reason the IRI would throw Syria over the side. That would jeopardize their 30 year long campaign to export their ideology into the Arab world. However, I would agree that the regime in Syria has cause to be alarmed if the fortunes of the IRI take a turn for the worse. Same goes for Hezbollah in Lebanon. And to a lesser extent, HAMAS in Gaza. But I'm not getting my hopes up because it seems like most problems between Arabs can be patched up, no matter how serious they may seem. Almost like the opposite of the problems between Arabs and outsiders, which always seem to be grievous and unsolvable.
The Israelis are far more in tune to the Muslim Middle-east than the people in Washington D.C. Even though they may remind him of he and his family's precarious position from time to time, they are not eager to replace him. The fall of the Assad family will not lead to a smooth transition to a new regime in Syria. It will more likely result in the kind of political fragmentation that Lebanon has undergone since the mid 1970's. This could actually work in Israel's favor, if they are able to play the various groups against each other.
Semite, just how is Lieberman a terrible FM? Israel's relationship with the US has always been the quasi-exclusive province of the PM, who also controls dealings with Arab countries. I'll grant you that Lieberman isn't the ideal person to deal with Europe (for all the good that does), but he is generally considered to be doing a very good job with all the rest of the world (Russia and Eastern Europe, BRIC, South America, Africa). In fact, unlike almost all of his predecessors in the last 2-3 decades who focused on the more prestigious aspects of their job, he is actually working at fostering ties with countries such as Brazil. The snarky comment from Brazil about his recent visit being the first one from a high-ranking Israeli in ages is illustrative (besides being shocking).
As you can deduce from my first sentence, I'm not Lieberman's biggest fan, but don't let your preconceptions blind you to the generally good job he's doing.
Unless you've had your ears plugged for a while the ME is full of people and governments who have vowed to exterminate Israel and the Jews. Their history vis a vis Hitler and the Nazis, their pronouncements (in Arabic) and their actions support their genocidal desires.
There were those in the 1930's who thought Mein Kampf was rhetorical propaganda for local consumption; not to be taken seriously. Only a few recognized what it really was: a guidebook for genocide and world conquest. It would be likewise foolish today to believe that the sentiments coming from Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezb'allah are just for local consumption too.
And Lieberman who is not intimidated by Arabic rhetoric and who is not afraid of speaking undiplomatically gets roundly criticized for it.
Perhaps it is only a "good cop-bad cop" scenario with Netanyahu...perhaps not.
Although it is unquestionably good advice to heed Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick", it is also important to remind one's enemies in no uncertain terms that you really DO have a big stick and are very prepared to use it.
