Bush Finally Takes Off the Gloves With Bashar

Long overdue: US President George W. Bush today — December 20, 2007 — took off the gloves and said that he had run out of patience with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. What happens now? That may be part of the deal the White House has done with Iran’s clerical leaders.

Indeed, the November 2007 secret deal between Washington and Tehran took off the table the threat of US military action with regard to Iran, which means that Tehran’s clerics don’t need Bashar and Damascus in quite the pressing way they did before. It’s true that Tehran won’t readily abandon HizbAllah any time soon, but the mullahs can find other ways to deal with it other than relying solely on Bashar in Damascus.

What this means is that the US now feels, rightly or wrongly, that it has a much more free hand to deal with Bashar. And Bashar, as far as the Bush White House is concerned, is a far more manageable target than Tehran. So watch for Washington to use 2008 to show some muscle in the battle to replace Bashar. This has been made much easier by the fact that a replacement is already in the wings — indeed, he’s been there for years — who can ensure more than just a smooth transition of power in Damascus.

Rifaat al-Assad, Bashar’s uncle — and polar opposite — would do all the things Washington approves. And he’d do them for the right reasons, as far as most Syrians are concerned, not just because they coincide with Washington’s own desires.

Rifaat has long advocated pulling Syrian forces and intelligence assets and subversive proxies out of Lebanon, in order to build a viable Lebanon and a viable Syria. Pres. Bush said today, at his big press conference: “Syria needs to stay out of Lebanon.” He also said: “My patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago. The reason why is because he houses HAMAS, he facilitates HizbAllah, suiciders go from his country into Iraq and he destabilizes Lebanon.”

Significantly, Rifaat would also move to ensure stable regional relations throughout the Levant: with Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. Everyone who has been familiar with his policies for the past few decades is aware that Rifaat favors free markets and democracy, as well as playing down religious and cultural differences. Moreover, Rifaat’s views are now accepted by most of the Arab leaders who recognize that decades of diversion created by anti-Israeli policies have meant that local aspirations have gone unaddressed. The Saudi leadership, which once insisted that the next Syrian leader should be a Sunni Muslim, have now fully endorsed Rifaat, and have told Washington this.

If Pres. Bush wants to make some friends in Israel, and push Israel further along the “comfort zone” in creating a new Palestinian state, when he visits Israel in the coming weeks, then the best thing he can do is start showing that he will help Rifaat into office in Damascus — where “the word” from our friends is that he will be warmly welcomed — as soon as possible. That will also bring HizbAllah back into line in Lebanon, and start the regional healing process. Let’s face it: decades of support by the US State Dept. for maintaining the status quo in Damascus has failed to deliver.

A new Bush approach along the lines suggested would deliver the Middle East peace which has eluded every US president since Jimmy Carter. More than that, French Pres. Nicholas Sarkozy is also calling for Bashar’s head on a plate, and the latest blatant Syrian attempts to influence the election of the new President of Lebanon have added fuel to the anti-Bashar fire.

Bush rammed the point home: “If he is listening to me — and he certainly doesn’t need a phone call — he will know what my position is.” But just what Bush will do is still the subject of conjecture, and hopefully will remain that way until the axe falls in Damascus.

Even the Iranian clerics seem to be going along with Bush. And Bashar is clearly on the defensive. His December 19, 2007, interview with Die Presse, in Vienna, said that there could no peace in the Middle East without Iranian cooperation, and implicitly this included the Iran-Syria alliance. But Washington may have already short-circuited that, by including Iran without Syria in the new peace process.