U.S. Hints at Regime Change Following Attack on Syrian Embassy
Secretary of State Clinton is warning Syrian dictator Bashar Assad that he “is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power,” a marketed escalation in rhetoric following attacks on the U.S. and French embassies that were undoubtedly orchestrated by the Syrian regime. The statement is just short of a direct call for Assad’s resignation, though that is likely to come soon.
About 300 pro-Assad “protesters” attacked the U.S. embassy, tearing down plaques, spray-painting anti-American slogans, and breaking windows and security cameras. The French embassy was also assaulted, and live ammunition was used to protect the facility. The State Department says the state-controlled television inspired the attacks, and a resident said perpetrators were members of the regime’s Alawite Shabbiha militia, four buses of which were brought in from Tartous. The attack was retaliation for a bold visit to Hama by the American and French ambassadors on Thursday to express solidarity with the hordes of protesters demanding regime change. They were greeted by cheering residents, who put flowers and olive branches on their vehicles.
The images of appreciation for the U.S. and France made the regime sweat, as they should. The Assad regime has long dissuaded the West from supporting its opposition by playing on fears that anti-Western Islamists are bound to come to power in its absence. One example is the riots that happened in Syria following the publication of the Danish cartoons mocking Mohammed. A cable released by WikiLeaks shows that the regime manufactured the radical Islamic protests in its country to send the message: “We are the only thing standing between you and the Islamist hordes,” in the words of a source quoted in the file.
This campaign has gone into overdrive since the revolution began, as I’ve written about here in PJM. Since then, the regime’s television has broadcasted “confessions” of jihadists who claimed responsibility for the violence in the country, stating their goal as the creation of an Islamic state. Predictably, the so-called terrorists said they received their weapons from supporters in Lebanon, supporting the regime’s propaganda that Lebanese opponents of Assad like Saad Hariri are arming radical Islamic terrorists. Clinton’s strong statement shows that the Obama administration is not buying into the regime’s propaganda that no better alternative to it exists.
The reception that the U.S. and French ambassadors in Hama received also disarms critics of “meddling” in Syria’s internal affairs. They often argue that such interference is not desired by the opposition, as that would delegitimize them. By the same token, if the regime felt that U.S. support for the opposition undermined their cause, they would welcome it. The positive reaction stands in sharp contrast to how the Syrian protesters have burned the flags of Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah for their support of the Assad regime. These implications are exactly why the attacks on the embassies were hatched. The regime cannot allow the West to believe that supporting the opposition is a viable option, as it would represent a mortal threat to its survival.
Clinton also said that Assad “has lost legitimacy.” This sounds obvious, but it’s a significant statement. The U.S. originally said that Assad was “losing” legitimacy. President Obama then said that Assad must oversee a democratic transition or “get out of the way.” Last month, Clinton said that his legitimacy was “if not gone, nearly run out.” Now, finally, the U.S. is saying it is “lost.” That seemingly minor change in language represents a major shift in policy, even if the politically toxic words of “regime change” are not used.
And it’s about time. The Assad regime is a card-carrying member of the “hate America” team. It has sponsored terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda. It has helped kill U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in Iraq. It’s tied to Iran’s hip, and is a primary backer of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups. It pursues weapons of mass destruction and spreads the ideology of radical Islam even if its governance is secular. What else does it have to do to be treated as an enemy regime worthy of replacement?
The chances that Islamists take over Syria following Assad’s downfall are not as high as often thought, and neutrality does nothing to undermine such anti-American elements. The best strategy is to get involved, assisting the democratic aspirations of an oppressed people and wrecking decades of anti-American propaganda in the process. In so doing, the West helps remove a stalwart enemy and foster a more hospitable environment to our interests, especially if a robust effort is put towards assisting secular liberals.
The revolution in Syria is an opportunity to dramatically alter the balance of power in the Middle East in our favor. We better not miss it.
ALSO READ BARRY RUBIN’S “U.S. Policy on Syria Changes For the Better, Sort Of.”
What is truly amazing about this story is that it barely made the news, anywhere! They were very minor headlines on the news web sites (FOX News barely even mentioned it) and CNN used it as a minor headline buried in “International News.” The New York Times wasn’t much better and today it’s as if nothing happened. This is really strange. I shudder to think what would have happened if an American embassy was attacked in this manner under a President like Teddy Roosevelt or even Ronald Reagan. Shows you how weak the arabs and Muslims think Obama is right now because they know they can get away with something like this. All Obama needs is for the American embassy in Damascus to be overrun and for our diplomats to be held hostage. Then Obama will complete the circle and be transformed into Jimmy Carter, part 2. Lord save us from this man!
“All Obama needs is for the American embassy in Damascus to be overrun and for our diplomats to be held hostage. Then Obama will complete the circle and be transformed into Jimmy Carter, part 2. Lord save us from this man!”
So say we all.
Regime change in Syria?
I would prefer a regime change in the White House, and a little stand-off communication with the idiots on the ground in Syria.
I miss Teddy Roosevelt.
Heck, I miss Jimmy Carter! At least he sat around doing nothing, which would be a lot better than the back door dismantling of our country going on right now.
I’m not saying that Assad is worth saving, hardly, Assad is Iran’s ally and Lebanon’s oppressor.
Should the rebels win, we’ll witness a nice bout of ethnic cleansing. But hey, its a revolution, have to be for the revolutionaries! It figures the Administration, in a no-win scenario, can’t leave well enough alone.
Bush had a program to turn the region into a democracy, however (ridiculously) expensive and can’t be replicated. Obama’s program looks to be to kick over the ant-hill and see what happens.
“The Assad regime has long dissuaded the West from supporting its opposition by playing on fears that anti-Western Islamists are bound to come to power in its absence.”
Coming from an Iranian puppet, it shows that Assad has a sense of humor.
Yeah, lets do “regime change” in yet another country where we have little real interest at stake.
Why not get ourselves out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and then stop meddling? We’ve got bigger fish to fry.
Regime change in our favour in Syria? I’ll believe when I see it i.e. probably never. I cannot imagine Iran will let this one go.
The attack on the US Embassy was an attack on US territory. A JDAM on Assad’s residence would have been a better response than a note saying the US President is really, really disappointed.
Given the rules in the Arab states, and given that his is a regime under dire threat, sending the US Ambassador was an extreme provocation. Assad is certainly our enemy here, but the author can hardly be surprised at the Embassy attacks given the visits to Hama.
Hama of course is also one of the largest cities in Syria and home to the Muslim Brotherhood. Given that the US has fostered an incremental MB takeover of Egypt – or at least encouraged it – by helping topple Mubarak – there is no reason to believe that American policy vis-a-vis Assad will lead to ‘democracy’ in Syria. The gap between Mauro’s ‘secular liberals’ and the realities of the opposition in Syria is enormous. The US has become, under Obama, a reckless and irresponsible player in the region.
Visiting Hama was perfectly appropriate. So what if the Assad’s are embarrassed about the men, woman, and children they slaughtered there? Hafez al-Assad had somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 Syrians killed there in 1982. Now the son wants to repeat the feat.
I have no love for the Muslim Brotherhood but the surrent Syrian regime is at least as bad.
Let the Arabs sort regional politics out amongst themselves.
Going into Afghanistan? Fine; the Taliban government was governing and harbouring mass murderers who were complicit in planning the terrorist attacks on the United States but we should have been out by now.
Going into Iraq? Would have been fine if the information on Saddam’s aquiring of nuclear weapons was correct, but like in Afghanistan, we should not continue to be there. Just as it would be fine if there ever is an American invasion of Iran to oust the current regime that is attempting to destabilize the region through aquiring nuclear weapons.
Going into Libya? Not fine; this is not the Cold War and Qadaffi has not been trouble for close to two decades. If Obama is concerned about “human rights” then we would be invading China right now instead of begging them to buy more of our debt.
Going into Syria? Not fine unless they go into overdrive in an attempt to aquire nuclear weapons and destabilize the region.
Yemen? The Saudis can take care of what goes on in their back yard; and they weill because they sure as heck do not want an American presence on the Peninsula.
American forces in Pakistan? Not fine; the Pakistani government will do the required amount to not make us angry enough to actually end our support of their government.
I agree that we should withdraw from Afghanistan & Iraq asap. However…
“Going into Iraq? Would have been fine if the information on Saddam’s aquiring of nuclear weapons was correct.. ”
Saddam for many years did not comply with the terms of the 19991 cease fire. Under the terms of the cease fire we were to have unfettered access to search for WMD. That included looking for vials of anthrax in Saddam’s underwear drawer and body cavity searches of his wives and concubines per our discretion. He repeatedly obstructed access and refused to come clean.
The first time Saddam obstructed our inspections hostilities should have resumed. Bagdad has been sacked more than once, we should have turned it into rubble the first time we encountered obstruction. But no, we allowed him to repeatedly violate the terms of the cease fire and thumb his nose at us. A great power does not allow that to go unnoticed and responds with overwhelming force. Ergo we are not a great power.
Attacking an embassy – I believe that’s an act of war.
As is the case in Egypt, the U.S. is pretending they have some actual control over what happens when they don’t in terms of a ground swell in the street.
What they’re really doing in both cases is exercising cross your fingers diplomacy.
If you look at both countries as Mafias that pay lip service to Islam and democracy as needed or not, I think we have a more accurate picture of what those two countries are like. Both have a powerful and wealthy elite in which the armies are heavily invested and they use those countries like a giant ATM.
They are not ideologues; Iran pays well in the case of Syria. Every one else wants a piece of the pie and young folks want Marxism. That is what every group wants that is keenly aware they are incapable of innovation or doing well in an individualistic meritocracy.
That’s why the Democratic Party wants socialism for their political base which they yell loudly are equals and cry racism to prove it, but in reality know they’ll have to rob the competent to keep morons afloat throughout eternity.
When have you ever seen a muslim country with a strong ideological bent outside of Islam itself? The middle east has no Jeffersonians or anti-Jeffersonians or any cohesive vision of any kind really.
They use Israel as a whipping post like George Lucas uses special effects even though Islamic countries are an even more strict version of Zionism than is Zionism.
What would replace Assad in Syria? What will the next wave bring crashing onto the shore at any beach in the world? There is no Delaware for these people to cross, only a keen interest in money and religion.
If Syria undergoes a Revolution, then I would think that the territorial integrity of Some of Syria is then in question.
One of the ways that Kurdish nationhood has been prevented, is the division of Kurdistan between the territories of Turkey, Syria, Iraq snd Iran.
We know that there are small civil insurrections in all these Kurdish majority provinces in all these States. Plus in Iraq, the Kurds have been able to carve out essentially a Kurdish mini-state, with Oil income, making it much easier to finance tand grow these insurrections.
I could see a few NorthEastern Syrian provinces declaring themselves free of Syria and joining their Iraqi Kurdish nationalists in Iraq.
One of the most unreported insurrections/wars that is bedeviling Ahmedinejard, is the insurrection in Iran in Kurdish majority provinces in their northern and western border Kurdish regions, by Kurds seeking autonomy or independence.
The establishment of a New Kurdistan is a big problem for the Islamists. The Kurds, like the Persians have an ancient national history pre-Islam that is respected.Kurdistan would become what we hoped for in Iraq – A generally “normal” basically secular/democratic nation in the Middle East. Not just another Trouble Maker.
Dr. Shalit
Will the pumped up would-be dictators never learn? I am speaking of the one married to Bill.
Al-Assad will not step down. He will continue to scoff and throw shoes at the rest of the world. He knows that, like al-Bashir the president of Sudan (indicted for war crimes and crimes against his own people due to committing similar attacks as al-Assad), he will not be apprehended. No one is going to go into Syria to catch him. Any country he goes to quietly will not turn him over to the ICC. And, like al-Bashir, the Obama administration and Clinton State Department will likely move to restore relations with al-Assad within the year.
I cannot wait for the horror stoires and the accounts of mass rapes and mutilations to begin.
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/syria.html