Anyone who observed the Arab Spring soberly knew it carried a terrifying storm in its wings. Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt was brutal and corrupt, but how foolish were those in the West who imagined that the Tahrir Square protesters embodied the spirit of Jeffersonian democracy? Likewise in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and now Syria, where the internal violence has gone on for almost as long as the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. In the bloody conflict in Syria, there are no good options. This was mentioned by an Israeli government minister ahead of a meeting of the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet on Sunday. In the overall balance, it is not clear which of the warring sides is worse than the other. Israel has known how to cope with the Assad family since the May 1974 Separation of Forces agreement. The Assads (first the father Hafez and later his son Bashar) have always conveyed a double message. On the one hand, they upheld the cease-fire on the Golan Heights. But on the other hand, they were working with Iran and transferred weapons and ammunition to Hezbollah. While there was quiet on the Golan Heights, Israel found itself under constant strain on the always uncertain Lebanese front. For years, Israel knew Syria was developing chemical weapons and that the Assads viewed such weapons as "poor men's atomic bombs" for use as a counter to Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities. Israel monitored the production and movement of Syria's chemical weapons and no one doubted that Syria would use such weapons if the Assad regime was in danger. This has now happened during the course of the current civil war in Syria. Syria's use of chemical weapons not only had human costs, but also created problematic diplomatic consequences. Syria has exposed the U.S., which promised to respond with force if the Syrian military used chemical weapons, but in reality sat back and did nothing. But what is the alternative? To support the rebels, whose ranks include the worst of the world's Islamic extremists? What would Syria's government look like if Assad fell? And what about the 14,000 Hezbollah terrorists who are helping Assad? Whoever wins the conflict in Syria could obtain Assad's chemical weapons and create a contiguous link with Iran that obviates the need for a relay station in Damascus. Israel's doctrine is that it won't permit the transfer of chemical weapons or advanced anti-aircraft missiles from Syria to Hezbollah, but if the rebels defeat Assad, they will get their hands on these weapons, without the need for any transfer operation. What is preferable for Israel? To attack Assad or encourage the Americans to do so? Or should Israel sit on the fence and hope the stalemated Syrian civil war goes on for as long as possible? If this last option is preferable, Israel shouldn't complain about the U.S. not fulfilling its pledge to respond with military force to Syria's use of chemical weapons. Israel's Diplomatic-Security Cabinet will meet again and again and its ministers won't have authoritative answers to the dilemmas posed by the situation in Syria. Quite simply, there aren't any.
