Iran draws the line with Turkey on Syria

Behind Iran's new Syria move is a calculated gamble that contrary to some Western perceptions, the Assad regime is not completely isolated and still enjoys a considerable mass following. This is reflected in huge pro-government rallies consistently ignored by the Western media, and that with sufficient internal and regional support, Damascus could survive and ride out the current storm. 

Complete article here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bashar El Assad and Legitimacy, Updated

One must recognise that Bashar El Assad is still, after four months of unrest, hugely popular in Syria. This is a fact, not an Al-Jazeera fabricated story. This is the fourth pro regime rally in Syria since March. The Syrian revolution 2011 has never been able to rally as much.

If one adds to this three other facts:

1. The hijacking of the Syrian Revolution 2011 by USrael and the Muslim Brotherhood;
2. The first USrael influence free government in Lebanon since years. The Lebanese government has been chosen by a majority of Lebanese who want to break free from USrael's influence and who wouldn't certainly like to see this influence resurrect in Syria with the toppling of the Assad regime;
3. The Syrian Revolution 2011 inability to present a united front against the Assad regime;

It is unlikely that we will see any change in the balance of support for the regime and the revolution 2011, from internal and external actors, any time soon. The balance might even shift in favour of the regime.

It is fair to say that right now Bashar El Assad still has the legitimacy of the majority of Syrians and there is no reason for this fact to change anytime soon. Also, people who are trumpeting a change in the fortunes of the regime through the faltering of the Syrian economy are undermining their own chances of success by overlooking the fact that putting extreme pressure on the Syrian economy can also eliminate the possibility of a successful and peaceful transition of power through the collapse of Syrian institutions and therefore make less likely a change in the current support for the regime from China and Russia which is based on the refusal of an Iraq like upheaval in Syria.

But the most important fact that is overlooked right now is, ironically, the support for the Assad regime in Lebanon across all sects, a support made possible by the overt enmity of March 14 toward Bashar El Assad and the little popularity this movement has right now in Lebanon (note that the recent support for the 'Syrian people' from Hariri masks a long history of abuse and killing of Syrian workers by Hariri's and March 14th militia in Lebanon).

UPDATE:

ALASTAIR CROOKE: Unfolding the Syrian paradox

Obama's strategic failure in Syria

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurriyet Daily News: Syria On The Right Track

Assad's third speech delivered on Monday June 20th was well received in the Turkish press, contrary to the Saudi funded press like Al Sharq Al Awsat.

Al-Assad’s speech Monday was promising as he talked about concrete steps with a concrete timetable. I am sure that most of the measures he mentioned were the ones advised by the Turkish officials over the course of the last two months.

It is no coincidence that when it was clear from yesterday's speech that Assad's fall will not come without the fall of the entire regime (read my previous post), Turkey has suddenly understood that it is not in their inetrest to have another Iraq at their frontier. From the beginning I wrote that Turkey will come to change its attitude if there were no cracks in sight inside the Baath regime and this is what just happened. At the same time, the ill advised Syrian revolution 2011 has focused its platform on the fall of Assad. As I wrote in my earlier post, yesterday's speech clearly demonstrated the unity of the regime, they will either survive together or go down together. This means that targeting Assad was not a smart move and still is not a smart move. But the Syrian Revolution 2011 thought that by targeting Assad, the regime will crack and let down Assad. This was the dynamic in Tunisia and Egypt, but it is clearly not the case here because while in Tunisia and Egypt the men who fell were the ones who made the regime, in Syria the man the Syrian revolution wants to topple is the face of the regime and he was made a statesman by this same regime. What we have seen from the beginning is the unity of this regime. The Syrian Revolution 2011, by scapegoating Assad, has trapped itself in a hateful, emotionally charged, rationally limited campaign, and it is the hate directed at Assad that made the unity of the regime stronger than ever.

High Noon: Bashar El Assad's Third Post-'Revolution 2011' Speech

This is his third speech since the start of the revolution 2011, different from the exuded confidence during the first and the measured confidence of the second. This speech is about a situation that has been deteriorating daily and El Assad seemed to be fully aware of this. The Main points:

- A realistic assessment of the situation: but there is no going back, Syria must look to the future.
- A will to make the amnesty more inclusive without threatening the security of the people and the state, and there will be no concessions for the extremists who willingly kill and vandalise.
- The reforms will be articulated by the national dialogue process that is going on.  The national dialogue basis is the muhafazat because of the mosaic of the Syrian society.
- There is need for electoral reform and constitutional reform, the first must come first.
- Electoral reform will likely be decided soon, before the august elections.  And by the end of the year the consitutional reform will be initiated.  
- Bashar nearly shocked when he mentioned the state of the Syrian economy and thanked all the people who are keeping their money in Syrian pounds even as little as 1000 pounds.
- Not once did he mention the sects or religions, he spoke in terms of the rich mosaic of the Syrian society.  He spoke only once of the painful events of the 1980s to illustrate that there is no going back for Syria.  This can be interpreted in two different ways and El Assad speaks in this way when he is under duress.  It can mean that reforms are coming but it can also mean that some people are trying to drag Syrians again in this hole but they won't succeed, the second interpretation conveys more firmness, albeit a veiled one.

The applause was spontaneous at least on two occasions.  When he spoke about himself and his family and when he spoke about the connection between the people of Syria, a connection he felt during his many meetings with people from across the country.

Some would say that there was nothing new.  I would say that this speech was intended internally.  What we saw today is Bashar delivering in a very somber mood (he cracked only one joke) a realistic assessment of the situation and the steps that has been taken and will be undertaken in the future to remedy the situation.  This speech was in no way intended for the people who are calling him to step down.

This is significant because it means that the regime stands united.  Either they survive together or they are going down together.  I would say that there is a real connection there between the prsesident and his men.  The people who are betting on cracks in the regime stand no chance to seeing any cracks soon.

I think the speech was measured and grave but the only thing that worries me is that Bashar seemed uneasy and unassuming again as during his first years in office.  He appeared more than ever as the face of the regime. But the people who are directing their anger against him are hitting the wrong target.  It doesn't mean that he is powerless, it doesn't diminish him, it means that he took this responsibility against his will and that he will assume it until the end" All this means also that if he is to step down, nothing will change.  But if it is the entire regime the Syrian revolution 2011 want to bring down, then my understanding is that they will bring down the whole country and we will have an Iraq like scenario.  So either the people behind the Syrian revolution 2011 are naive or they are deceiving us.  Increasingly Bashar El Assad and his family are becoming the scapegoats for the discontent with the regime.  And the plan is 'sacrifice the scapegoat' and everything will turn out to be fine. This is a bad plan for Syria. This regime has been part of Syria for the last 40 years, so either the regime and those who want change (the real revolutionaries, not The Syrian Revolution 2011) work out something together or things will turn bad. The second option seems to be the goal of the Syrian revolution 2011.

Bashar to Ban Ki Moon: We are in the eye of the storm and you need to stay in contact with us

Revealed by Le Monde, a strange conversation took place last April between Syrian president Bashar El Assad (BEA) and UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon. It gives a fresh and new perspective on BEA as a head of state and politician but it also gives a clearer picture of the weakness of the new UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon, not only toward his US masters but also toward any head of state and official he meets. It is clear from the conversation that Ban Ki Moon is considered as a US puppet and everything that is said to him by officials is meant to be conveyed to his masters. Lets turn now to the conversation's minutes partially published today by Le Monde and translated here.

The meeting, which lasted more than an hour, was held on April 24th in the presidential palace in Damascus, before the UN took the decision for the Hariri international tribunal.
The situation in Iraq is mentioned but most of the conversation turns around Lebanon. BKM insists on the important role that Syria must play in order to supress Lebanon's internal divisions. He thinks Damascus must encourage the creation of the international tribunal to judge the assassins of Rafiq Hariri, and not the contrary.

The answer of BEA is pungent: "Sectarian and ethnic divisions have been deeply rooted in Lebanese society for more than 300 years. Lebanese society is very fragile and it stabilised only during the Syrian presence between 1976 and 2005 after which Lebanon entered a new period of political instability again."
"The political instability in Lebanon, added BEA, will be aggravated by the special tribunal, especially if it is under chapter seven of the UN convention, which is binding, reinforcing the constraining aspect of the tribunal. That may easily initiate a conflict and can potentially degenerate into a civil war, provoking divisions between sunnis and shias from the Meditterranean to the Caspian seas. This might have grave consequences extending beyond the Lebanese frontier.

"In the eye of the storm"
Syria, said BEA, has always played a constructive role in Lebanon, contrary to the roles played by France and the US. The influence of these two last countries is destructive to Lebanon.
Syrian foreign minister, Walid Mouallem, intervenes at that point to harshly criticize the US ambassador to Lebanon, Jeff Feltman. "Feltman must leave the country. I am ready to offer him a vacation in Hawaï."
BKM, unable to react, continues to recite his well learned lesson, and pleads for a reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria. "The present lebanese government is illegal'', replies BEA. ''The Syrian people hate the March 14th movement led by Fouad Siniora. I tried to talk to Siniora, but it is now impossible. However, if a unity government including the opposition is formed, Syria will revise its stance."
BKM continues to recite his lesson and expresses his fears concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions. "As an oriental, you must understand, replies BEA. Iran is a regional power and must be recognised as such. They have the capacity to derail the entire Middle east and beyond. (…) There will be no positive evolution on this question as long as the West does not recognise to Iran the right to be a nuclear power."

The meeeting ends with the usual thanks from BKM to BEA who then says to him: "We are in the eye of the storm. You will need to stay in contact with us."

I am not sure BKM understood the metaphor.

You can hate BEA, you can call him names, you can despise him, but you cannot deny that he is right in what he says. Arrogant yes, but right. Speaking about facts might also look arrogant for an international community which is increasingly neglecting facts, building foreign policies only on the fantasies of the neocon new world order.

The source article in French

P.S and Update: An anonymous reader protested (in an impolite way, go my Néthique's Icon at the top of the blog page if you want to understand what impoliteness) that there might be some translations problems because to plead for ''the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon'' is to ignore that there was never official representation in the first place between Syria and Lebanon.
I am sorry to tell this reader that I had to rely on the article of Le Monde, which, in turn, relied on the minutes of the meeting. The article states: ''M. Ban enchaîne, plaidant pour le rétablissement des relations diplomatiques entre le Liban et la Syrie.'' I doubt Le Monde's journalist mistranslated from the minutes, which might have been in English. However, I believe BKM, or those who wrote the script for him, are totally ignorant of the historic of the situation, which might explain the absence of historic perspective to the words he used in the meeting. As for myself I have to stick to my source, which is le Monde's article.