Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJust when you thought that the Middle East couldn't support yet another crisis -- after all, there's Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and throw in Georgia, too -- the Syria-Lebanon front is heating up. This is serious stuff.
Breathless neocons are issuing alarmist warnings about a possible Syrian invasion of northern Lebanon, after a spate of bombings that hit both Damascus and the northern Lebanon city of Tripoli. Amir Taheri, one of those neocons, writes:
For the last week or so, Syria has been moving heavily armed elite military units to the Lebanese border - with up to 25,000 massed there by early last week. Backed by tanks, armored vehicles and attack helicopters, the units were on "maximum war footing," eyewitnesses say. ... Lebanese analysts say the type of force Syria is massing is better suited for a classical invasion than for chasing small and scattered groups of bandits along the border.
According to the Lebanese media, Syria has placed about 10,000 troops on the border.
This comes at a critical time: Israel and Syria are conducting fairly public negotiations about a Syrian-Israeli deal to return the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to Syria, and the leaders of both Turkey and France are deeply engaged in promoting it. At the same time, Syria is closely tied to Iran, and Syria's President Assad is getting stronger backing from Russia, including arms, since Syria supported the Russian action against Georgia. It all means that this is a high-stakes game.
Some background: earlier this week, a huge car bomb in Damascus killed 17 people, not far from two possible targets: a headquarters of the Syrian intelligence service and an important Shiite mosque. Both targets are plausible for attacks by underground, Sunni fundamentalist radicals -- possibly tied to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood -- who oppose Assad's regime. (Many Sunni fanatics consider Assad, who belongs to a quasi-Shiite minority sect, to be an infidel.) The bombing took place against the backdrop of an ongoing insurrection by Sunni Islamist prisoners in a Syrian jail.
According to the Times, Assad put the blame on Islamists based in northern Lebanon and moved troops to the border:
Assad issued a warning about the presence of hard-line Sunni Islamists just across the border in northern Lebanon, hinting that they were receiving support from Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, thousands of Syrian troops were deployed near the border with northern Lebanon, in a move that was understood as a related gesture, though Syrian officials said it was to control smuggling.
Here's the actual quote from Assad:
"Northern Lebanon has become a real base for extremism and constitutes a danger for Syria."
Assad also hinted, reports the Times, that Saudi Arabia -- whose regime notoriously supports both the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni extremists in Lebanon -- might be behind the bombings and Islamist revolts.
In and around Tripoli, there is a proxy war of sorts underway, pitting hard-core Sunni Islamists against secular, nationalist and pro-Syrian forces there.
Lebanon's political system, of course, is fragile. Earlier this year, a breakthrough accord was reached around the election of the army chief of staff, Michel Suleiman, to be president of Lebanon. As part of the deal -- which was brokered by Saudi Arabia and Iran, working together -- the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia was granted a powerful place in Lebanon's government. And Suleiman began tilting toward Damascus. Many neocons raised alarms, worrying about the possibility that the influence of Syria and Iran was giving those two powers, and Hezbollah, a controlling share in Beirut. Is it possible that the deal is unraveling? Or will Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah simply opt to exercise a coup d'etat in Beirut (and Tripoli)?
The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, didn't tip his hand in an interview this week in the Wall Street Journal:
The visit of President Michel Suleiman to Damascus last month was an important visit. It was agreed to build a strong base for the future of relations between Syria and Lebanon, starting from exchanging diplomatic relations, demarcation of the borders, and security cooperation between both countries. These issues are important and build on the mutual respect for sovereignty and independence of both countries.
Last Friday, Moallem held an unusual meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The US establishment certainly doesn't want a war with Syria. But more radical elements, from the neocons to Israeli hardliners to Saudi backers of anti-Syria Islamists, might be pushing the crisis. The Syrian exiled opposition, led by the Muslim Brotherhood and a former top Syrian official, Abdel-Halim Khaddam, have long been rumored to be in discussions with US and French intelligence about "regime change" in Damascus. But on the ground, in Lebanon at least, Syria seems to be in the driver's seat.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"Here's the actual quote from Assad: "Northern Lebanon has become a real base for extremism and constitutes a danger for Syria."
He should have said "They've re-constituted their nuclear program and have tons of chemical weapons all around Damascus"....
that'll get you support for any invasion you want!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 09:49am
Syria is close to Iran politically? yeah, like Saddam was close to Iran. what nonsense. Syria, like Iraq is run by the Baathist party, and they're Sunni, while Iraq is Shia.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/30/2008 @ 10:55am
Syria is close to Iran politically? yeah, like Saddam was close to Iran. what nonsense. Syria, like Iraq is run by the Baathist party, and they're Sunni, while Iraq is Shia.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/30/2008 @ 10:55am
Emile, unfortunately on this you're wrong. Syria is very close to Iran adn gets massive economic and military help from Tehran. Some in the US and Israel want to pry Syria away from Iran by making a deal with Damascus. ... As for Saddam, when he was in power both Iran and Syria were allies aligned against him.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 09/30/2008 @ 11:26am
we are stupid to not work with syria. with a secular government and enemies of islamic extremism...a high profile camp david style initiative could yield impressive positive results...
but if we just want A-rabs and towelheads to bomb...gues we should listen to the neocons...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/30/2008 @ 11:36am
A couple days ago, Olmert revealed that he's for giving up the occupied territories. Since day one Olmert has probably envisioned Mordecai Vanunu & his fate & thusly "moderated" his position. This "financial wrongdoing" crap thrown at Olmert is probably politically motivated. The hardliners on all sides have tremendous leverage & historically the US has sided with Sunnis. The Islamists can only come in handy to these guys. Regime change, hah.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/30/2008 @ 11:46am
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 09/30/2008 @ 11:26am
YIKES..."Professor" JOHANNESROLF gets smacked down on foreign affairs??!?!?!
Is this a Sign of the Apocalypse???
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 11:51am
assad's "shiite" sect is in fact more a form of gnosticism with an islamic facade. assad is someone we can work with and remove yet one more enemy from israel's borders...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/30/2008 @ 12:10pm
Certainly, Syria could count on the US being horribly distracted by its financial crisis and bogged down militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, if they were really intent on moving into Lebanon again soon.
osted by Zero at 09/30/2008 @ 12:49pm
Don't count on it. George would put us into another conflict no matter how bad our economy is or how tied up the military is. Look at LVL for an example, if it's the right fight then we should empty the treasuries fighting it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2008 @ 1:32pm
This would be a great opportunity for Obama to go over and talk to these folks.
He such a great talker.
Man, what a talker.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/30/2008 @ 1:37pm
Man, what a talker.-----Posted by bleedingheart at 09/30/2008 @ 1:37pm
Thank you, Mr. Pot for that unbiased analysis of Mr. Kettle!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 1:43pm
Mr. Dreyfuss,
I don't know if it was intentional, but you gave the impression Assad moved his troops to the Lebanese border after the 27 September Damascus bombing. According to most sources, he moved them before the bombing, on or around 22 September.
Regards, Paul Faris
Posted by PaulFaris at 09/30/2008 @ 1:46pm
While both Syria and Iraq had Baathist parties, they differed on who should lead the Arab Middle East. It was more of a secular political disagreement. Syria and Iran have very different types of government. Their relationship is based on their strategic national interests. I don't see Syria invading Lebanon at this time, since they have a developing friendship with the current government. Anything the Neocons say is a lie!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/30/2008 @ 2:18pm
While both Syria and Iraq had Baathist parties, they differed on who should lead the Arab Middle East. It was more of a secular political disagreement. Syria and Iran have very different types of government. Their relationship is based on their strategic national interests. I don't see Syria invading Lebanon at this time, since they have a developing friendship with the current government. Anything the Neocons say is a lie!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/30/2008 @ 2:18pm
we are stupid to not work with syria. with a secular government and enemies of islamic extremism...a high profile camp david style initiative could yield impressive positive results...
but if we just want A-rabs and towelheads to bomb...gues we should listen to the neocons...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/30/2008 @ 11:36am
ESO ES, BUDDY! Exactly. There's a case to be made for good US relations between and among Syria, the North and Central parts of Lebanon and Israel.
You are right, Americans make no distinction however between "towel-heads". And Americans love Israel, but hate Jews!
Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 2:24pm
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 09/30/2008 @ 11:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
counterintuitive, but yes you are correct.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/30/2008 @ 2:59pm
Apparently the several neural deficit on all other threads has resulted in a surplus on this page. It's the first time in weeks I've been able to read more than a few lines without suffering logic deprivation syndrome.
Politics is so much easier to analyze when it's somewhere else.
Mask,
Does Emile = Johannesrolf? Just curious.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/30/2008 @ 3:31pm
Does Emile = Johannesrolf? Just curious.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/30/2008 @ 3:31pm
Yep....our beloved "Professor" JOHANNESROLF....lover of all things German and expert on ....well....everything!
"nah. I am 60 years old, I am a scholar, I am an artist, I am technician, I am a thinker. the ducks always envy the swan. if you have something to discuss, pridey, be my guest."-----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/18/2007 @ 8:56pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 3:44pm
hmmm,
a nice little war in syria to ensure mr. mccain's survival........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2008 @ 4:27pm
WSJ: What's Syria's view on Israel's attack last September on an alleged nuclear reactor?
Mr. Moallem: The American side admits they were collecting information, supplied by a third country in the Middle East… Israel... to attack this location, claiming it's a nuclear reactor, which is totally untrue. We agreed with the…IAEA. They sent their observers to this location. They took biological samples, and we are waiting for them to give us their report on the result. The important issue is that this is a military location, not a nuclear location.
At the same time, we want to tell the American side we would not repeat their experience and lies on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war in Iraq. You can't be partners in an aggression against a target in a sovereign country, and you're a member of this Agency. And after destroying this target you go to the Agency and say this is a nuclear target. You should have done this before.
WSJ: How would Syrian-Israeli peace impact Damascus's relations with Iran?
Mr. Moallem: We must not put the horse behind the carriage. And I'm not going to jump to the conclusion before achieving the conclusion. And no doubt, peace between Israel and Syria is part of a comprehensive peace involving the Lebanese, the Palestinians, and Israel also. If we reach this point, it will have strategic implications for the entire Middle East. Whether we accept it or not, Iran is an important player in the region. And Iran always supported Syria's right to liberate the Golan Heights and the Palestinian people's rights. If we achieve this through peaceful means, I don't see the Iranians opposed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2008 @ 4:30pm
Does Emile = Johannesrolf? Just curious. Posted by MyParadigm at 09/30/2008 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
from the horse's mouth: yes
Posted by emile duBois at 09/30/2008 @ 7:16pm
JR, a toast to your honor then, sir, what tattered remnants there are.
I took a bit of a Nation Vacation. When I returned, several names had changed but the writing styles were the same, some regrettably so. I took to Emile's ragged swatches of wisdom, but did not recognize you.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/30/2008 @ 8:11pm
This is an interesting article . But I can't see why Dreyfuss needs to go along with the mainstream media by pointing out that the bomb went off near a shia shrine when in fact it went off 8km away. It seems to me that, from reading this article, there maybe preparations for Israel to take the south of Syria while Saudi Arabian backed groups attack the north of Syria - by all accounts this mobilisation along the border is intending to stretch the capabilities of the Syrian army. And no way can Syria fight on two fronts.
Posted by Jibran at 10/03/2008 @ 5:14pm