• Syria after Assad

    From Steve Hayes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 11 05:51:50 2024
    XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.international, alt.religion.islam XPost: alt.religion.christianity, soc.rights.human

    Simon Sebag Montefiore: After Assad

    His bloody reign of Syria has come to an end. What sort of country
    will the warlord Abu Mohammad al-Jolani usher in?

    The Free Press

    By Simon Sebag Montefiore, December 9, 2024

    In Qardaha, in the Alawite lands of Latakia on the Mediterranean,
    stands the sumptuous and pristine marble mausoleum worthy of an Arab
    monarch. It is here the founder of the brutal Assad dynasty, Hafez
    al-Assad, is buried in magnificence.

    Assad was not the original family name. Hafez’s grandfather was a
    powerful character known as Sulayman al-Wahhish—the al-Wahhish meaning
    the wild beast—for his strength; one of his sons was Ali, another
    formidable figure, a farmer and leader known for his toughness, he had
    eleven children; Hafez was his ninth son. His nickname was
    al-Assad—the Lion—and he adopted that as his family’s name.

    Hafez’s chosen heir was his swaggering eldest son, Bassel. Always
    promoted as the “golden knight” and depicted on horseback, he died
    young in a car crash and was buried alongside his father, leaving the succession to his younger brother—a gawky, chinless eye surgeon named
    Bashar. He turned out to be just as murderous as his father.

    I have seen no footage yet of the fate of the mausoleum and the bodies
    that lie there, just as I have seen no footage of Bashar al-Assad as
    he fled the lightning-fast overthrow of his country. But his father’s
    and brother’s bodies are unlikely to remain untouched—unless he has
    taken them with him.

    For 53 years, the Assad dynasty ruled Syria with savagery—and with
    internal family politics that resembled a toxic cross between a Mafia
    family and the court intrigues of a medieval monarchy, combined with a Stalinist cult of personality. Case in point: When Hafez had a heart
    attack, his brother and praetorian commander, Rifaat, tried to seize
    power and was exiled. (It was Rifaat who, in 1982, carried out the
    massacre of the city of Hama, killing around 40,000 civilians in a few
    days—a slaughter that still ranks as the bloodiest killing of
    civilians in modern Arab history.)

    When Bashar gained control, he, too, struggled to control a wilder
    brother, Maher, who ultimately became the murderous enforcer of the
    regime. The Mafia parallel became even more striking in recent years
    as the dynasty degraded into an organized crime family selling
    Captagon across the region.

    When the dynasty was faced with the uprisings of the Arab Spring in
    2011, the cruelty of the Assad reign changed to barbaric, nihilistic
    slaughter under the leadership of Bashar Assad, who held power only
    thanks to the backing of a murderous alliance of Iran, its vassal
    militia Hezbollah, and Russia. Around 600,000 Syrians were killed as
    Assad perpetrated by far the worst butchery in the Middle East in
    modern times, symbolized by the slogan: “Assad or the Country Burns!”

    What we have witnessed over the past 48 hours—the toppling of Assad
    statues in various cities; the opening of the hellish prisons (in
    which some benighted prisoners had survived for decades); the fleeing
    of many of the secret police; the departure of Russian and Hezbollah
    troops; and now the vanishing of the dictator himself—is astonishing.
    It is impossible to watch the fall of the brutal tyranny of the House
    of Assad without feeling joy.

    But this is the Middle East. Anyone who remembers the Arab Spring
    knows that things can always get worse. And anyone who studies history
    knows that predictions are for fools.

    The warlord Abu Mohammad al-Jolani—formerly of al-Qaeda, then
    al-Nusra, and now the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, known as HTS—now
    rules Damascus and much of Syria—but far from all. On Wednesday, his
    faction announced that “Muslims and Christians in all their diversity
    will be respected.” Whether this suggests a genuine wish, or whether
    this is simply the latest chameleon twist in al-Jolani’s long history
    of deception on the road to creating an Islamist state, has yet to be
    seen. (Of course, the Western media are easily manipulated by small
    details. Yesterday, CNN actually analyzed al-Jolani like this: “How
    Syria’s rebel leader went from radical jihadist to a blazer-wearing ‘revolutionary’.” Never has a blazer, or any sartorial triviality, assumed such geopolitical significance.)

    It is also yet to be seen what al-Jolani—a terrorist who fought the
    Americans in Iraq and was imprisoned, for a time, at Abu Ghraib—has in
    mind for Syria. What we know is that for decades, the fate of Syria
    has been in the hands of ruthless faraway contenders, chiefly the
    Iranian tyrant Ayatollah Khamenei, Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, whose airpower
    enabled Assad to survive. They long used the Syrian people as puppets
    in their anti-American, anti-Israeli resistance axis.

    These men weren’t the only ones exploiting Syria. So was Turkish
    president Recep Erdogan, who is bombing Kurdish civilians in Syria as
    I write these words.

    It is worth recalling the other outside player here: the now-dead
    Hamas chieftain Yahya Sinwar. His reckless invasion of Israel and
    savage butchery on October 7, 2023, was meant to unleash the
    liquidation of the Jewish republic. Instead, his pogrom has been a
    disaster not just for the Palestinians, whose civilians have suffered grievously, but also for the entire Axis of Resistance. The war he
    started has shattered the vassals of Iran’s would-be empire—Hamas and Hezbollah—and ultimately, perhaps, the regime itself.

    Russia, too, is a big loser. Ever since Catherine the Great, the
    Russian empire has aspired to Near Eastern power. In the 1770s,
    Catherine sent a Russian fleet that bombarded Lebanon and backed Arab
    leaders to bring down the Ottomans. In the late 1940s, Stalin
    initially backed the creation of Israel in the hope that the
    socialistic Jewish republic would be a Soviet ally. When Israel became
    a French, then U.S., ally, the Soviets aggressively backed Arab
    dictators: Hafez al-Assad became a major ally of Leonid Brezhnev and
    frequent visitor to Moscow, giving the Soviets naval bases on the Mediterranean.

    For those who remember this history, it is no surprise that Putin came
    to Bashar’s aid after the Arab Spring. Brutal Russian bombardment and civilian slaughter won the civil war for Assad and earned Putin
    continued possession of the Tartus naval base and other infrastructure
    in Latakia that, until now, made Russia a regional arbiter. Russia’s
    easy and bloody success in Syria was one factor that gave Putin the
    confidence of a military supremo to invade Ukraine.

    A catastrophic failure of U.S. policy also plays a role in this
    unfolding story. President Obama’s failure to enforce his famous “red line” when Assad used chemical weapons against his own people was a
    disaster for American power in the region and part of his
    administration’s abandonment of the region to Iranian hegemony. To
    paraphrase Talleyrand, not just a moral disgrace—even worse, a bad
    mistake. President-elect Trump says he wants no part of this conflict.
    Yet with fairly minor deployments of U.S. power, he will be able to
    influence Syria. Keen to win the golden laurels of Middle East
    peacemaker already gilded by the Abraham Accords, he will not be able
    to keep out of Syria, which will need to be part of any grand deal for
    the region.

    Turkey and Israel are the other two major regional contenders. Israel
    feared Assad’s aggressive Syria—and for understandable reasons. In the
    1973 Yom Kippur War, Syrian commandos and tank forces performed well
    against Israel in their surprise attack. When Syria sank into civil
    war, Israel preferred the fragmented Syria nominally under a broken
    Assad to an Islamist one. Now it appears it may be getting an Islamist
    Syria. On Sunday, Israel bombed fleeing Hezbollah forces and chemical
    weapons facilities now unprotected by Russia. It also occupied more of
    Golan to prevent HTS forces seizing positions there. Israel will take
    no chances and now faces Turkish power taking the place of the
    Iranians and the Russians.

    As for Turkey: The military forces of this NATO member are formidable,
    and it sees a huge opportunity to exert its influence over Syria. It
    is one of the many ironies of the region that while President Erdogan
    rants against Israeli warmongering and occupation of Palestinian
    lands, he backs his Muslim Brothers in Hamas, occupies his own zone of
    northern Syria, and regularly bombs Kurdish civilians and towns. Part
    Islamic leader, part Turkish nationalist, part Ottoman heir, the
    ambitious autocrat Erdogan is keen to project power into former
    Ottoman territories, and as a traditional Turkish leader, he also
    fears Kurdish terrorism and, even more, Kurdish self-determination.

    For the departing Russians, it is clear what has happened: Turkey is
    replacing Russia as the hegemon of Syria. Israel will now have to cope
    with a newly empowered Turkey that is a match for Israeli military sophistication and ruthlessness. It is here that Trump’s dealmaking
    could be essential.

    It is worth recalling that during his reign, Hafez al-Assad was lauded
    by Western admirers, particularly British and American “Arab experts,”
    as the wise “Sphinx of Damascus,” as was his son Bashar after him.
    They were praised by an ignoble array of illiberal progressives,
    ignorant journalists, anti-Western academics, pro-Soviet and then
    Putinist “tankies,” Foreign Office and State Department apologists,
    fake “human rights activists,” overstuffed and underinformed BBC panjandrums, and footling fashionistas (the famous Vogue magazine
    “Desert Rose” piece on British-educated fashion maven Mrs. Assad
    remains a classic) as shrewd Arab modernizers and leaders of the “resistance” against wicked U.S. and Israel. That astonishingly
    illiberal hypocrisy has continued up to today, including by a certain discredited, rabidly anti-Israel U.N. rapporteur.

    Another way to see the events—as I do—is with a longer time frame: the continuing disorder emerging from the fall of the Ottoman empire that
    ruled the Arab world from its conquest by Sultan Selim the Grim in
    1517 and that ended in 1918 with the division of the region between
    the victors France and Britain. Russia, which had been promised a
    share of the Ottoman Near East, had fallen under Bolshevik rule. That
    left Britain and France under the ambitious liberal imperial premiers
    David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau, who called their new
    provinces “Mandates,” as confirmed by the League of Nations. Britain
    was given a new entity called Iraq and another named Palestine
    (today’s Israel, Palestinian Authority, and Kingdom of Jordan). France received Greater Syria (Syria and Lebanon). Initially, Paris planned
    to divide its Mandate into smaller states for its favored allies the
    Maronite Christians (Lebanon), the Druze, the Alawites, and the Sunnis
    in Damascus. The Kurds—the largest people in the region—were promised
    their own state, but that was prevented by the creation of the new
    Republic of Turkey in 1922–23. In the end, the French decided against creating several smaller states and instead created Lebanon to be
    ruled by their Maronite Christian allies in partnership with Sunnis
    and Druze; and Syria.

    None of these new “Mandate” states, which became independent after
    World War II, had explicitly existed before. Most have failed as states—except, ironically, the British Mandate of Palestine, now
    Israel and the stable, if frail, Kingdom of Jordan. (The other
    successful states of the region are the oil-rich monarchies of Saudi
    Arabia and the Gulf, which were never colonized and were created
    organically.) The two most successful states of the post–Ottoman
    Middle East are the two created against the wishes of the Imperial
    powers, in active rebellion against Britain, and formed by war, ethnic partition, and population transfer: Turkey and Israel. Those are now
    the two chief arbiters of the future of Syria.

    The failure of all these states—Iraq, Lebanon, Syria—are just part of
    a wider instability created by the failure of many of the
    postimperial, postcolonial states formed by the Great Powers after
    1945 in the Middle East and Africa in the 1960s. Many of the latter,
    from the Sahel to Sudan and Congo, will either degrade into chaotic
    warlands and exsurgencies, ruled not by states but militias, become protectorates of new colonial powers such as China, or survive as
    federalized states made up of autonomous entities. True in Africa, it
    may also be true for the Middle East.

    Syria may emerge as a single state, tolerant of all its many ethnic minorities—but that is very unlikely—or it may be further federalized
    into autonomous entities ruled by the Kurds, the Alawites, and a
    central sector under Sunni rule, hopefully not of repressive
    Islamists. Each will be protected by or dominated by outside powers,
    and this may just be the start of another round of civil war. Turkey
    already has its army in its own Turkish-occupied zone, plus its own
    Syria proxy militia in Syria, and it is unclear what relationship will
    develop with HTS. Israel may develop its own relationships with the
    Kurds and others. Russia, most likely, will depart—though the
    possibility of an enclave around Tartus could be delivered in
    agreement with the Turks. Al-Jolani will either try to remake himself
    as a Syrian leader for all sects, or stay true to the die-hard
    Islamism of his career, with disastrous results for all Syrians, but
    especially women.

    The U.S. is already involved in this imbroglio; as well as Turkish and
    Israeli air strikes, America is bombing Islamic State targets. Trump,
    despite his own desires, will inevitably be drawn in as the world
    arbiter keen to shape a new Middle East.

    As for Bashar al-Assad? He will settle into his new Russian dacha far
    from the Syria he raped and ruined.

    It is only human to praise the fall of a tyrant. Watching people
    emerge from the dark dungeons of his prisons is moving and impossible
    to look away from. But the possibilities here are endless, and no one
    knows how this may play out.

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

    Simon Sebag Montefiore is the best-selling, prize-winning author of
    Jerusalem: The Biography; The World: A Family History of Humanity; and
    The Romanovs: 1613–1918 (Knopf). Follow him on X @SimonMontefiore.

    Source: <https://www.thefp.com/p/simon-sebag-montefiore-after-assad-syria-putin-trump>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)