Subject: A pox on ALL their houses.
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:39:09 +1100
Collusion or Conflict of Interests?
The US / Qatar Alliance
In his inaugural address on January 21, U.S. President Barak Obama made the historic announcement that "a decade of war is ending" and declared his country's determination to "show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully," but his message will remain words that have yet to be translated into deeds and has yet to reach some of the U.S. closest allies in the Middle East who are still beating the drums of war, like Israel against Iran and Qatar against Syria.
In view of the level of "coordination" and "cooperation" since bilateral diplomatic relations were established in 1972 between the U.S. and Qatar, and the concentration of U.S. military power on this tiny peninsula, it seems impossible that Qatar could move independently apart, in parallel with, away or on a collision course with the U.S. strategic and regional plans.
According to the US State department's online fact sheet, "bilateral relations are strong," both countries are "coordinating" diplomatically and "cooperating" on regional security, have a "defense pact," "Qatar hosts CENTCOM Forward Headquarters," and supports NATO and U.S. regional "military operations. Qatar is also an active participant in the U.S. – led efforts to set up an integrated missile defense network in the Gulf region. Moreover, it hosts the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center and three American military bases namely Al Udeid Air Base, Assaliyah Army Base and Doha International Air Base, which are manned by approximately 5,000 U.S. forces.
Qatar, which is bound by such a most intimate and closest alliance with the United States, has recently developed into the major sponsor of Islamist political movements. Qatar appears now to be the major sponsor of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, reportedly, disbanded in Qatar in 1999 because it stopped to view the ruling family as an adversary.
The Qatar –Brotherhood marriage of convenience has created the natural incubator of Islamist armed fundamentalists against whom the U.S., since September 11, 2001, has been leading what is labeled as the "global war on terrorism."
The war in the African nation Mali offers the latest example on how the U.S. and Qatar, seemingly, go on two separate ways. Whereas US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, was in London on January 18 "commending" the French "leadership of the international effort" in Mali to which his country was pledging logistical, transportation and intelligence support, Qatar appeared to risk its special ties with France, which peaked during the NATO – led war on Libya, and to distrust the U.S. and French judgment.
On January 15, Qatari Prime and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, told reporters he did not believe "power will solve the problem," advised instead that this problem be "discussed" among the "neighboring countries, the African Union and the (U.N.) Security Council," and joined the Doha – based ideologue for the Muslim Brotherhood and their Qatari sponsors, Yusuf Abdullah al – Qaradawi — the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars who was refused entry visa to U.K. in 2008 and to France last year – in calling for "dialogue," "reconciliation" and "peaceful solution" instead of "military intervention."
In a relatively older example, according to WikiLeaks, Somalia's former president in 2009, Sharif Ahmed, told a U.S. diplomat that Qatar was channeling financial assistance to the al-Qaeda – linked Shabab al-Mujahideen, which the U.S. listed as "terrorist."
In Syria, for another example, the Brotherhood is the leading "fighting" force against the ruling regime and in alliance with and a culprit in the atrocities of the terrorist bombings of the al-Qaeda – linked Al-Nusra Front, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization last December; while the Brotherhood – led and U.S. and Qatar – sponsored Syrian opposition publicly protested the U.S. designation, the silence of Qatar on the matter could only be interpreted as in support of the protest against the U.S. decision.
Recently, Qatar has, for another example, replaced Syria, which has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979, as the sponsor of Hamas, whose leadership relocated from Damascus to Doha, which the U.S. lists as a "terrorist" group, and which publicly admits being the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood.
Qatar, in all these examples, seems positioning itself to be qualified as a mediator, with the U.S. blessing, trying to achieve by the country's financial leverage what the U.S. could not achieve militarily, or could achieve but with a much more expensive cost in money and souls.
In the Mali case, the Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad went on record to declare this ambition: "We will be a part of the solution, (but) not the sole mediator," he said. The U.S. blessing could not be more explicit than President Obama's approval of opening the Afghani Taliban office in Doha "to facilitate" a "negotiated peace in Afghanistan," according to the Qatari Foreign Ministry on January 16.
However, a unilateral Qatari mediation failed in Yemen, a Qatar – led Arab mediation in Syria has similarly proved a failure two years on the Syrian crisis, the "Doha Declaration" to reconcile Palestinian rival factions is still a paper achievement, the Qatari mediation in Sudan's Darfur crisis has yet to deliver, the Qatari "mediation" in Libya was condemned as intervention in the country's internal affairs by the most prominent among the post – Gaddafi leaders, and in post – "Arab Spring" Egypt Qatar dropped its early mediation efforts to align itself publicly to the ruling Brotherhood. But in spite of these failures, Qatar's "mediation" efforts were successful in serving the strategy of its U.S. "ally."
Hence the U.S. blessing. The Soufan Group's intelligence analysts on last December 10 concluded that "Qatar continues to prove itself to be a pivotal U.S. ally, … Qatar is often able to implement shared U.S.-Qatari objectives that Washington is unable or unwilling to undertake itself."
The first term Obama administration, under the pressure of "fiscal austerity," blessed the Qatari funding of arming anti – Gaddafi Islamists in Libya, closed its eyes to Qatar's shipment of Gaddafi's military arsenal to Syrian and non – Syrian Islamists fighting the regime in Syria, "understood" the visit of Qatar's Emir to Gaza last October as "a humanitarian mission," and recently approved to arm the Qatar – backed and Brotherhood – led Egypt with 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks.
This contradiction raises the question about whether this is a U.S. – Qatari mutual collusion or it is really a conflict of interests; the Obama administration during his second term has to draw the line which would give an explicit answer.
Seemingly nowadays, Doha and Washington do not see eye to eye on Islamic and Islamist movements, but on the battle grounds of the "war on terror" both capitals could hardly argue that in practice their active roles are not coordinated and do not complement each other.
Drawing on the historical experience of an Iranian similar "religious" approach, but on a rival "Shiite" sectarian basis, this Qatari "Sunni" Islamist" connection will inevitably fuel sectarian polarization in the region, regional instability, violence and civil wars.
Given the U.S. – Qatar alliance, the Qatari Islamist connection threatens to embroil the U.S. in more regional strife, or at least to hold the U.S. responsible for the resulting strife, and would sustain a deep – seated regional anti – Americanism, which in turn has become another incubator of extremism and terrorism and which is exacerbated by the past "decade of war," which President Obama in his inaugural address promised to "end."
Traditionally, Qatar, which stands in the eye of the storm in the very critical geopolitical volatile Gulf region, the theatre of three major wars during the last three decades, did its best to maintain a critical and fragile balance between the two major powers which determine its survival, namely the decades – old U.S. military presence in the Gulf and the rising regional power of Iran.
In 1992 it signed a comprehensive bilateral defense pact with the United States and in 2010 it signed a military defense agreement with Iran, which explains its warming up to closer ties with the Iran – supported Islamic anti – Israel resistance movements of the Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories and explains as well Qatar's "honey moon" with Iran's ally in Syria.
However, since the eruption of the bloody Syrian crisis two years ago, the Qatari opening up to regional pro – Iran state and non-state powers was exposed as merely a tactical maneuver to lure such powers away from Iran. In the Syrian and Hezbullah cases, the failure of this tactic has led Qatar to embark on a collision course with both Syria and Iran, which are backed by Russia and China, and is leading the country to a U-turn shift away from its long maintained regional balancing act, a shift that Doha seems unaware of its threat to its very survival under the pressure of the international and regional conflicting interests as bloodily exposed in the Syrian crisis.
During the rise of the massive Pan-Arab, nationalist, socialist and democratic movements in the Arab world early in the second half of the twentieth century, the conservative authoritarian Arab monarchies adopted the Brotherhood, other Islamists and Islamic political ideology and used them against those movements to survive as allies of the United States, which in turn used both, spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, against the former Soviet Union and the communist ideology, to their detriment after the collapse of the bipolar world order.
However history seems to repeat itself as the U.S. – backed Arab monarchies, spearheaded by Qatar, are resorting to their old tactic of exploiting the Islamist ideology to undermine and preempt an Arab anti – authoritarian revolution for the rule of law, civil society, democratic institutions and social and economic justice in Arab countries on the periphery of their U.S. protected bastion in the Arabian peninsula, but they seem unaware they are opening a Pandora's box that would unleash a backlash in comparison to which al – Qaeda's fall back on the U.S. will prove a minor precedent.
Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Email: nassernicola@ymail.com
In view of the level of "coordination" and "cooperation" since bilateral diplomatic relations were established in 1972 between the U.S. and Qatar, and the concentration of U.S. military power on this tiny peninsula, it seems impossible that Qatar could move independently apart, in parallel with, away or on a collision course with the U.S. strategic and regional plans.
According to the US State department's online fact sheet, "bilateral relations are strong," both countries are "coordinating" diplomatically and "cooperating" on regional security, have a "defense pact," "Qatar hosts CENTCOM Forward Headquarters," and supports NATO and U.S. regional "military operations. Qatar is also an active participant in the U.S. – led efforts to set up an integrated missile defense network in the Gulf region. Moreover, it hosts the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center and three American military bases namely Al Udeid Air Base, Assaliyah Army Base and Doha International Air Base, which are manned by approximately 5,000 U.S. forces.
Qatar, which is bound by such a most intimate and closest alliance with the United States, has recently developed into the major sponsor of Islamist political movements. Qatar appears now to be the major sponsor of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, reportedly, disbanded in Qatar in 1999 because it stopped to view the ruling family as an adversary.
The Qatar –Brotherhood marriage of convenience has created the natural incubator of Islamist armed fundamentalists against whom the U.S., since September 11, 2001, has been leading what is labeled as the "global war on terrorism."
The war in the African nation Mali offers the latest example on how the U.S. and Qatar, seemingly, go on two separate ways. Whereas US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, was in London on January 18 "commending" the French "leadership of the international effort" in Mali to which his country was pledging logistical, transportation and intelligence support, Qatar appeared to risk its special ties with France, which peaked during the NATO – led war on Libya, and to distrust the U.S. and French judgment.
On January 15, Qatari Prime and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, told reporters he did not believe "power will solve the problem," advised instead that this problem be "discussed" among the "neighboring countries, the African Union and the (U.N.) Security Council," and joined the Doha – based ideologue for the Muslim Brotherhood and their Qatari sponsors, Yusuf Abdullah al – Qaradawi — the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars who was refused entry visa to U.K. in 2008 and to France last year – in calling for "dialogue," "reconciliation" and "peaceful solution" instead of "military intervention."
In a relatively older example, according to WikiLeaks, Somalia's former president in 2009, Sharif Ahmed, told a U.S. diplomat that Qatar was channeling financial assistance to the al-Qaeda – linked Shabab al-Mujahideen, which the U.S. listed as "terrorist."
In Syria, for another example, the Brotherhood is the leading "fighting" force against the ruling regime and in alliance with and a culprit in the atrocities of the terrorist bombings of the al-Qaeda – linked Al-Nusra Front, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization last December; while the Brotherhood – led and U.S. and Qatar – sponsored Syrian opposition publicly protested the U.S. designation, the silence of Qatar on the matter could only be interpreted as in support of the protest against the U.S. decision.
Recently, Qatar has, for another example, replaced Syria, which has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979, as the sponsor of Hamas, whose leadership relocated from Damascus to Doha, which the U.S. lists as a "terrorist" group, and which publicly admits being the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood.
Qatar, in all these examples, seems positioning itself to be qualified as a mediator, with the U.S. blessing, trying to achieve by the country's financial leverage what the U.S. could not achieve militarily, or could achieve but with a much more expensive cost in money and souls.
In the Mali case, the Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad went on record to declare this ambition: "We will be a part of the solution, (but) not the sole mediator," he said. The U.S. blessing could not be more explicit than President Obama's approval of opening the Afghani Taliban office in Doha "to facilitate" a "negotiated peace in Afghanistan," according to the Qatari Foreign Ministry on January 16.
However, a unilateral Qatari mediation failed in Yemen, a Qatar – led Arab mediation in Syria has similarly proved a failure two years on the Syrian crisis, the "Doha Declaration" to reconcile Palestinian rival factions is still a paper achievement, the Qatari mediation in Sudan's Darfur crisis has yet to deliver, the Qatari "mediation" in Libya was condemned as intervention in the country's internal affairs by the most prominent among the post – Gaddafi leaders, and in post – "Arab Spring" Egypt Qatar dropped its early mediation efforts to align itself publicly to the ruling Brotherhood. But in spite of these failures, Qatar's "mediation" efforts were successful in serving the strategy of its U.S. "ally."
Hence the U.S. blessing. The Soufan Group's intelligence analysts on last December 10 concluded that "Qatar continues to prove itself to be a pivotal U.S. ally, … Qatar is often able to implement shared U.S.-Qatari objectives that Washington is unable or unwilling to undertake itself."
The first term Obama administration, under the pressure of "fiscal austerity," blessed the Qatari funding of arming anti – Gaddafi Islamists in Libya, closed its eyes to Qatar's shipment of Gaddafi's military arsenal to Syrian and non – Syrian Islamists fighting the regime in Syria, "understood" the visit of Qatar's Emir to Gaza last October as "a humanitarian mission," and recently approved to arm the Qatar – backed and Brotherhood – led Egypt with 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks.
This contradiction raises the question about whether this is a U.S. – Qatari mutual collusion or it is really a conflict of interests; the Obama administration during his second term has to draw the line which would give an explicit answer.
Seemingly nowadays, Doha and Washington do not see eye to eye on Islamic and Islamist movements, but on the battle grounds of the "war on terror" both capitals could hardly argue that in practice their active roles are not coordinated and do not complement each other.
Drawing on the historical experience of an Iranian similar "religious" approach, but on a rival "Shiite" sectarian basis, this Qatari "Sunni" Islamist" connection will inevitably fuel sectarian polarization in the region, regional instability, violence and civil wars.
Given the U.S. – Qatar alliance, the Qatari Islamist connection threatens to embroil the U.S. in more regional strife, or at least to hold the U.S. responsible for the resulting strife, and would sustain a deep – seated regional anti – Americanism, which in turn has become another incubator of extremism and terrorism and which is exacerbated by the past "decade of war," which President Obama in his inaugural address promised to "end."
Traditionally, Qatar, which stands in the eye of the storm in the very critical geopolitical volatile Gulf region, the theatre of three major wars during the last three decades, did its best to maintain a critical and fragile balance between the two major powers which determine its survival, namely the decades – old U.S. military presence in the Gulf and the rising regional power of Iran.
In 1992 it signed a comprehensive bilateral defense pact with the United States and in 2010 it signed a military defense agreement with Iran, which explains its warming up to closer ties with the Iran – supported Islamic anti – Israel resistance movements of the Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories and explains as well Qatar's "honey moon" with Iran's ally in Syria.
However, since the eruption of the bloody Syrian crisis two years ago, the Qatari opening up to regional pro – Iran state and non-state powers was exposed as merely a tactical maneuver to lure such powers away from Iran. In the Syrian and Hezbullah cases, the failure of this tactic has led Qatar to embark on a collision course with both Syria and Iran, which are backed by Russia and China, and is leading the country to a U-turn shift away from its long maintained regional balancing act, a shift that Doha seems unaware of its threat to its very survival under the pressure of the international and regional conflicting interests as bloodily exposed in the Syrian crisis.
During the rise of the massive Pan-Arab, nationalist, socialist and democratic movements in the Arab world early in the second half of the twentieth century, the conservative authoritarian Arab monarchies adopted the Brotherhood, other Islamists and Islamic political ideology and used them against those movements to survive as allies of the United States, which in turn used both, spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, against the former Soviet Union and the communist ideology, to their detriment after the collapse of the bipolar world order.
However history seems to repeat itself as the U.S. – backed Arab monarchies, spearheaded by Qatar, are resorting to their old tactic of exploiting the Islamist ideology to undermine and preempt an Arab anti – authoritarian revolution for the rule of law, civil society, democratic institutions and social and economic justice in Arab countries on the periphery of their U.S. protected bastion in the Arabian peninsula, but they seem unaware they are opening a Pandora's box that would unleash a backlash in comparison to which al – Qaeda's fall back on the U.S. will prove a minor precedent.
Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Email: nassernicola@ymail.com
Endgame Scenarios
Saudi Arabia v. Qatar on Syria
With all the reams of reporting on Syria, I am surprised that relatively little is written, in English anyway, about the divergence of aims between Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Qatar backs the Muslim Brotherhood and, it appears, would not object to a brokered deal to end the insurrection that allows the MB to get its nose in the political tent, then make its play for winning control of the new government through some combination of foreign pressure, domestic mobilization, and elections.
Saudi Arabia, it appears, has no love for the Muslim Brotherhood and is perfectly happy to crater the Assad regime through a bloody insurrection abetted by foreign jihadis, in order to deny Iran a regional ally, score another victory for fundamentalist Sunni rollback, and increase the pressure on the Shi'a-led government of Iraq by adding the factor of a hostile, pro-Saudi and overtly Sunni Syrian regime to the increasingly disgruntled and emboldened Sunnis of western Iraq (some of whom are reportedly participating in the Syrian war).
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton abruptly ordered the reorganization of the overseas Syrian opposition in November 2012, ostensibly to make it more representative (and possibly to make it appear less like a stalking horse for the Muslim Brotherhood), Qatar played along.
Qatar hosted the reboot of the Syrian coalition—which still included a dominating MB component–as the "Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces".
At the time, I wrote that the ghost at the banquet was Saudi Arabia (i.e. Saudi Arabia did not attend but was nevertheless a significant and disturbing presence, for people who don't get the Macbeth reference), and pointed out that the aggressive Saudi agenda of regime collapse through jihadi-assisted insurrection would ineluctably result in the other interested parties thinking about how to cope, sooner or later, with these dangerous, destabilizing, and viscerally anti-democratic and anti-Western armed assets.
The relevant precedent is the so-called "Anbar Awakening" in Iraq in 2006, when socially conservative but not particularly fundamentalist Sunni elites in western Iraq got nervous about the growing role of al Qaeda in their anti-US resistance (and AQ's challenge to their local authority and personal safety), switched over to cooperation with the United States, and participated in a counterinsurgency raree cum death squad purge of the jihadis.
Saudi Arabia has no interest in a moderate Sunni counter-revolution targeting its fundamentalist Sunni counter-revolution in Syria, so it has, in my mind, little interested in a negotiated political settlement that would presumably involve the long-suffering local Sunni elites clubbing together with a new, ostensibly moderate Syrian regime to annihilate the Saudi-funded and/or encouraged jihadis and restore a measure of stability and political control to the stricken country.
Therefore, at the SNCORF launch, a radical rump was able to veto a call for a negotiated settlement.
This week, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud, explicitly rejected any negotiated settlement—a position which, though advantageous to Saudi interests, was probably greeted with dismay by the war-weary Syrians of every political stripe, and the foreign powers who are tired of the Syrian sideshow and would like the whole problem swept under the rug with a Yemen-style transfer of power:
However, Prince Saud has drawn the line in the sand, indicating that Saudi Arabia is optimistic about a scenario of total regime collapse—and a subsequent political endgame in which Saudi allies occupy a privileged and protected position in the new power structure instead of getting massacred by a tag team of threatened Sunni citizens and the newly "democratic" Syrian army.
If Turkey and the western powers feel compelled to clean up the mess after Syrian regime collapse, the Saudi position seems to be, they are welcome to send in an occupying army–Saudi Arabia certainly won't. This is something that the United States, EU, and Turkey are probably equally loath to commit to, for reasons beyond the quite understandable "the last thing we need is another Middle East military quagmire" concerns.
The unwillingness of the anti-Assad coalition to encourage, enable, and validate the Saudi strategy by implying any intent to commit forces to restore order and nationbuild after a regime collapse—as much as fear of an eventual Syrian quagmire—probably accounts for the western squeamishness about threatening armed intervention in anything more than the most toothless and abstract terms.
However, Prince Saud's statement indicates that potential trauma of a post-Assad failed Syrian state–in which disciplined fundamentalist local and jihadi fighters have the potential to play an important role despite their smaller numbers– is unlikely to deter Saudi Arabia from its regime collapse strategy.
And, after years of ostentatious vilification of Assad—and, I suspect, a callous willingness among Obama administration realpolitik practitioners to advance anti-Iran rollback notwithstanding the consequences for the Syrian people—the United States lacks the political will to demand a negotiated settlement of Assad—or of its allies in the anti-Assad coalition.
Saudi Arabia, by its intransigence—and, possibly through sustained, sub rosa support for religiously fundamentalist fighters, foreign and domestic, inside Syria—holds a de facto veto on the policy position of the anti-Assad powers and the future of Syria itself.
Peter Lee edits China Matters. He can be reached at: chinamatters (at) prlee. org.
Qatar backs the Muslim Brotherhood and, it appears, would not object to a brokered deal to end the insurrection that allows the MB to get its nose in the political tent, then make its play for winning control of the new government through some combination of foreign pressure, domestic mobilization, and elections.
Saudi Arabia, it appears, has no love for the Muslim Brotherhood and is perfectly happy to crater the Assad regime through a bloody insurrection abetted by foreign jihadis, in order to deny Iran a regional ally, score another victory for fundamentalist Sunni rollback, and increase the pressure on the Shi'a-led government of Iraq by adding the factor of a hostile, pro-Saudi and overtly Sunni Syrian regime to the increasingly disgruntled and emboldened Sunnis of western Iraq (some of whom are reportedly participating in the Syrian war).
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton abruptly ordered the reorganization of the overseas Syrian opposition in November 2012, ostensibly to make it more representative (and possibly to make it appear less like a stalking horse for the Muslim Brotherhood), Qatar played along.
Qatar hosted the reboot of the Syrian coalition—which still included a dominating MB component–as the "Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces".
At the time, I wrote that the ghost at the banquet was Saudi Arabia (i.e. Saudi Arabia did not attend but was nevertheless a significant and disturbing presence, for people who don't get the Macbeth reference), and pointed out that the aggressive Saudi agenda of regime collapse through jihadi-assisted insurrection would ineluctably result in the other interested parties thinking about how to cope, sooner or later, with these dangerous, destabilizing, and viscerally anti-democratic and anti-Western armed assets.
The relevant precedent is the so-called "Anbar Awakening" in Iraq in 2006, when socially conservative but not particularly fundamentalist Sunni elites in western Iraq got nervous about the growing role of al Qaeda in their anti-US resistance (and AQ's challenge to their local authority and personal safety), switched over to cooperation with the United States, and participated in a counterinsurgency raree cum death squad purge of the jihadis.
Saudi Arabia has no interest in a moderate Sunni counter-revolution targeting its fundamentalist Sunni counter-revolution in Syria, so it has, in my mind, little interested in a negotiated political settlement that would presumably involve the long-suffering local Sunni elites clubbing together with a new, ostensibly moderate Syrian regime to annihilate the Saudi-funded and/or encouraged jihadis and restore a measure of stability and political control to the stricken country.
Therefore, at the SNCORF launch, a radical rump was able to veto a call for a negotiated settlement.
This week, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud, explicitly rejected any negotiated settlement—a position which, though advantageous to Saudi interests, was probably greeted with dismay by the war-weary Syrians of every political stripe, and the foreign powers who are tired of the Syrian sideshow and would like the whole problem swept under the rug with a Yemen-style transfer of power:
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said on Tuesday the scale of violence used by Syria's government when fighting rebels meant a negotiated settlement of the country's crisis was unthinkable.The United States and its European allies, it appears, would welcome some kind of negotiated settlement as long as Western face is saved by Assad stepping down. Turkey, which is facing a growing Kurdish calamity and has probably had a bellyful of its Syrian adventurism, would probably agree. And, as noted above, Qatar has a post-Assad electoral agenda based on its MB assets.
"Damascus… which has been a city for the longest period of time, is carpet bombed. How can you conceive of the possibility of a negotiated settlement with somebody who does that to his own country, to his own history, to his own people? It is inconceivable to us," Prince Saud al-Faisal told a news conference.
However, Prince Saud has drawn the line in the sand, indicating that Saudi Arabia is optimistic about a scenario of total regime collapse—and a subsequent political endgame in which Saudi allies occupy a privileged and protected position in the new power structure instead of getting massacred by a tag team of threatened Sunni citizens and the newly "democratic" Syrian army.
If Turkey and the western powers feel compelled to clean up the mess after Syrian regime collapse, the Saudi position seems to be, they are welcome to send in an occupying army–Saudi Arabia certainly won't. This is something that the United States, EU, and Turkey are probably equally loath to commit to, for reasons beyond the quite understandable "the last thing we need is another Middle East military quagmire" concerns.
The unwillingness of the anti-Assad coalition to encourage, enable, and validate the Saudi strategy by implying any intent to commit forces to restore order and nationbuild after a regime collapse—as much as fear of an eventual Syrian quagmire—probably accounts for the western squeamishness about threatening armed intervention in anything more than the most toothless and abstract terms.
However, Prince Saud's statement indicates that potential trauma of a post-Assad failed Syrian state–in which disciplined fundamentalist local and jihadi fighters have the potential to play an important role despite their smaller numbers– is unlikely to deter Saudi Arabia from its regime collapse strategy.
And, after years of ostentatious vilification of Assad—and, I suspect, a callous willingness among Obama administration realpolitik practitioners to advance anti-Iran rollback notwithstanding the consequences for the Syrian people—the United States lacks the political will to demand a negotiated settlement of Assad—or of its allies in the anti-Assad coalition.
Saudi Arabia, by its intransigence—and, possibly through sustained, sub rosa support for religiously fundamentalist fighters, foreign and domestic, inside Syria—holds a de facto veto on the policy position of the anti-Assad powers and the future of Syria itself.
Peter Lee edits China Matters. He can be reached at: chinamatters (at) prlee. org.
So Much for Balance
Five Ways of Looking at the New Knesset
This is the way the results of the elections are being presented in the Israeli press:
Centre Left Bloc Right Bloc
Other, perhaps more accurate ways to present the election results:
Left Bloc Right Bloc
Non-Jews Jews
Women Men
Willing to take the necessary steps for a two-state solution?
Willing Unwilling
Centre Left Bloc Right Bloc
Other, perhaps more accurate ways to present the election results:
Left Bloc Right Bloc
Non-Jews Jews
Women Men
Willing to take the necessary steps for a two-state solution?
Willing Unwilling
Neve Gordon is the chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and is the author of Israel's Occupation, University of California Press, 2008. His website is www.israelsoccupation.info
__._,_.___
