It seems like only yesterday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was being courted by progressive Western politicians even as he conspired with Iranian jihadists and Kremlin strongmen. And it was less than two years ago that Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue and commandant of the fashionistas, was celebrating First Lady Asma Assad as a rose in the desert, whose style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment
a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement." The Syrian dictator has yet to be pried from power, but with the Kremlin sending war ships Kremlin sending ships: ] for a possible evacuation of Russian citizens, it may not be long before the Assads are pass . Thats good news, isnt it? In the Middle East, yes and no are rarely correct answers. We can say this: Assads downfall would be preferable to Assads survival. As U.S. Central Command chief Gen. James N. Mattis told Congress last March, regime change in Syria would represent the biggest strategic setback for Iran in 25 years. And Iran ruled by a regime that is building nuclear weapons, has plotted terrorism from Buenos Aires to Georgetown, threatens Israel with genocide, and proclaims jihad against the Great Satan is unquestionably the Free Worlds most vexing challenge. For reasons having more to do with geo-politics than ideology, the Western-educated, English-speaking, outwardly secular and socialist Assads decided long ago to serve as the ayatollahs henchmen, helping them extend their power into the Arab and Sunni worlds, and facilitating their plans for hegemony over the Middle East. The collapse of the Assad regime would impede this project and deliver a body blow as well to Hezbollah, Irans foreign legion and currently the best-armed and strongest faction in Lebanon. By the same token, Assads survival would be a great victory for Iran and Hezbollah and a defeat for Lebanon, the U.S. and Israel. It was not until eight months after the anti-Assad protests broke out in January 2011 that President Barack Obama called for the dictator to step down. Obama willed the ends but not the means. It was left to private groups to supply even the communications technology necessary for dissenters to organize against (and escape from) Assads forces. Today, the administration is assisting some rebel groups with communications but other responsibilities, such as the provision of weapons, have been outsourced to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those three nations agree that Assad must go. But they want him replaced by Islamists of some stripe, and so it is Islamist groups that they have been backing with what amounts to Washingtons tacit approval. As a result, Islamists have become dominant on the battlefield and within the newly established Syrian National Coalition of Revolution and Opposition Forces that Obama recently said he would recognize. Meanwhile, lacking money and weapons, moderate groups have been left in the lurch. Is it too late to begin assisting them now? Once again the answer is both yes and no: Yes, its too late to make them the driving force of the Syrian revolution. But providing support would be consistent with both Americas values and interests. As to values, Americans should always support those fighting for freedom, no matter how small a minority they may be. If we do not, no one else will not Europeans, most of whom have become indifferent to tyranny, and certainly not the U.N., which de facto sides with authoritarians and autocrats. And on interests, with help, freedom fighters may be able to damage and weaken our common enemies. (Without help they can do nothing but capitulate or die.) Even after Assads departure, peace is unlikely to break out in Syria. Instead, expect revenge killings and sectarian fighting, with Iran fueling the fires. An election may be attempted, but the odds are not high that it would succeed. Different groups and factions currently hold sway in different parts of the country. Many will not relinquish their power easily, and its not obvious that they should. Syrias most important ethno-religious minorities Kurds, Druze, Christians, Alawites (Assads people), Shiites and tribal groups with long and strong traditions will certainly not want to be ruled by Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al Sham, the two Salafi jihadist groups that have played an increasingly effective role in the fighting over recent months. They also may not want to submit to the Muslim Brotherhood which, though less thirsty for violence, contains Arabs, Sunnis and Islamists eager to impose their version of a Shariah state. If we provide support to anti-Islamist groups will they at least be able to defend themselves, achieving a measure of autonomy within the boundaries of their home turfs? There is no guarantee. Without our support, however, its hard to see how they can avoid being crushed under Islamist boots. One post-Assad outcome seems clear and positive: It will be a long time before Syria is again a threat to Lebanon or Israel assuming, of course, that Assads chemical weapons can be eliminated from the equation. That those weapons of mass destruction have been allowed to stay in the dictators hands all these years represents yet one more failure of the so-called international community. I say that as someone with a trained analytical mind who dresses with cunning understatement." Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.
