Over the past five months the Syrian pro democracy movement has grown significantly. Demonstrations have spread in all parts of the country and protest slogans are forcefully calling for Baschar Assad to step down. Syrians have demonstrated with courage that the future of their country should be shaped by a democratic government while Assad's thugs are continuing to torture and slaughter innocent men, women and even children.

The Arab Spring has turned for Syria into a bloody summer. The brutality of the military apparatus becomes more and more inhumane every day and still Assad's henchmen are not able to silence Syria's freedom movement. For years the myth was present that Assad is deep down in his heart a reformer and more than willing to cut his alliance with Hezbollah and the Iranian dictatorship if only the West would seek enough engagement. It turned out that Assad junior is truly the son of his father. And anything, but willing to leave the treacherous fusion with other worldwide sponsors of terrorism as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Republic clearly are.

If the international community truly wants to untie the Syrian ties with terrorist groups this is the historic chance. Baschar Assad is on the edge of collapse - his regime is not only isolated, but can't continue to rule after it has lost its legitimacy.

So what should the international community do?

The weakest point of the Syrian regime is visible: its energy revenue. Oil and gas sanctions - especially imposed by European countries - will have a strong effect in supporting Syria's democracy movement. Furthermore, cutting political ties is more than a symbolic gesture. Several Arab countries - including the powerful Saudis - have withdrawn their ambassadors from Damascus. Qatar even closed its embassy already several weeks ago. It's about time that the European Union and the United States follows. Breaking the silence was something urgently needed on the world stage and now strong political measures should come next - led foremost by the US president. We do owe this not only to the Syrian people who have sacrificed their lives for a democratic cause, but also to ourselves.

While the momentum of Syria's freedom fighters is growing and growing the international community needs to realize that for years the wrong Syria has been engaged. It is the future of Syria with its vibrant civil society that has been neglected over the years. Engaging the democratic Syria is what the United States in form of a contact group are already shaping and as Secretary Clinton expressed so well this is about to be on the right side of history.

A successful Syrian revolution would immensely contribute to limit or even entirely end the destructive influence of the Iranian regime in this region. The axis Assad - Hezbollah - Islamic Republic would break and mean a strategic, financial and logistical disaster for the Islamic Republic. No wonder the Iranian dictatorship sees the fall of Baschar Assad as their second worst nightmare becoming reality.. They very well know that after Assad it'll be Khamenei who has to leave once and for all. We should know this too and seize this unique opportunity. The Syrians deserve the freedom their so courageously seeking and so do the Iranians.

Saba Farzan is a German-Iranian journalist specialized on the Middle East and Transatlantic Relations

August 17, 2011

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

While the removal of the Assad regime could be destabilizing, it might be destabilizing in a good way by putting pressure on the Iranians by making them lose a key, if not THE key, proxy in the region.

This is why I think NATO, if it was to have a little demonstration of Western purpose, should have intervened here and not the sideshow of Libya. There are real strategic dividends to be gained from the removal of Assad, few for removing Qadaffi.

The problem now is, the die has been cast and NATO is stuck having to salvage some element of its reputation in Libya and it unable to realistically deal with the big show.

I argued this briefly in my piece on a regional security architecture and nothing has changed to alter that view. Syria is a BIG deal. Libya a tangential at best proposition.

Its disappointing that both American and European strategists allowed themselves to be so constrained by such irrelevancy.

August 17, 2011

Anna Meier, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, Bronze Contributor (12)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree that Syria is a much bigger deal than Libya. Still, I don't think a military intervention would have been the way to go. We've seen that Libya is turning into a long-term project, and when Qaddafi is finally disposed of, it's unclear what the next step for NATO forces will be in the country. Will NATO withdraw completely and let Libya trip along, or will it attempt to maintain security for the Libyan people and thus be drawn into a longer-term commitment? The same conundrum would have occurred in Syria had we intervened there instead.

More attention needs to be paid to Syria, but NATO's strategy should consist of severing political ties and sanctions, as the author suggests, not military intervention.

August 18, 2011

Winston

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Shared

August 23, 2011

Amrit Deecke Naresh, Fulbright Program, Silver Contributor (31)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Saba, thanks very much for writing on this crucial topic. I agree that the US and EU should stop dragging their feet on closing their embassies in Damascus. Obama has repeatedly declared that Assad has lost all legitimacy and the he should "step aside", but it is becoming clear that he will not step aside of his own accord. Western military intervention is not an option. But what about neighboring Turkey, and possibly even Saudi Arabia, getting involved?

Certainly it is a delicate situation with the complex diplomatic dynamics of the region. Prospective intervening countries must not only consider the lives lost in Syria, but also their own relations with countries like Iran, Lebanon and Israel. The high stakes seem to have paralyzed onlooking powers, including the EU and US. But how many lives must be lost before concrete action is finally taken?

Tags: | Lebanon | Iran | Syria | US | EU | Israel | Hamas | Hezbollah |

August 24, 2011

Alexandra Dobra, Warwick University - Cambridge University - York University, Silver Contributor (63)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

As the article pointed very well, if Syria gets free, this would rise a huge impediment towards the increased rise of so-called rogue States within the region. Nevertheless, what Syria needs now is a diplomatic support from the outside and a right transfer of "know how" practices, in order to consolidate a viable democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOEXNYyZF90

August 24, 2011

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The case in Syria needs a deeper analysis:
First it is not all pro-democracy movement but there are lots of extremist Salafists in the street there. You can ask the experts who have lived there for a long time. I do not think that that Saudi Arabia and other monarchies in the region that opposed other revolutions are now supporting democracy in Syria.
Second, the population of Syria is a mixture of Arab Sonnies, Shiite Alavies and Kurds. Parts of casualties are related to sectarian violence among sectarian groups, not democratic ones. Turmoil in Syria will undermine the shaky security situation in Iraq, Lebanon and Kurdish area in Turkey and will lead to more instability and casualties.
Third: Syria is not so important for Iran. Now, Iraq is much more important and both Iran and the US have common interests in supporting peace and stability there.
Democracy is the solution but to pave the way for democracy and reduce more casualties, sectarian violence should be condemned and controlled.

August 24, 2011

Radek Kowalski

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

As a rule of thumb I would say NATO raids would not have the same effect in Syria as they had in Libya.

The difference I see is that in Libya the rebels had some weapons from the beginning. I don't remember the name of the man, but there was a guy in Benghazi (the HQ of the rebel movement) who loaded his car with explosives used to catch fish, rode all that into the gates of the military compound in the city, and blew it up so that others could go and grab the weapons there. He is definitely a hero - that's how the Libyan armed revolution started and people started to fight back against the army. From then onwards the rebels had not only light weapons but also some artillery and loads of ammunition.

And what would happen if NATO bombed Syrian army?

Would the Syrian government order heavy bombing of cities? Would they take their opponents hostage or tie them to their tanks? Assad already showed he has no mercy for opponents, and makes no effort to win back their support. Only if he was faced by a real force he would have to do more to get popular support.
Gaddafi courted tribesmen and offered cash. If he didn't face an armed enemy, he would simply rely on his army.


@ Nabi Sonboli: I have to disagree with you. I don't believe Iran is so easygoing about Syria. It's very good point that radical salafi islam may play a role in the Syrian conflict. Even though I can't say much about the instance of Syria, I can say that the rebel movement in Libya so far has been very liberal, open to debates and very very well organized because it benefits from contributions of all layers of society: both islamists and atheists, farmers, shop keepers and bankers.

Tags: | syria libya gaddafi assad revolution |

August 25, 2011

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

It seems what Saba and many others are more concerned about is Iran not Syria or Libya. What they suggest reminds me of a Persian proverb: It says "Fearing a pit, falling in a deep well". It describes very well the western policies toward the ME during the past three decades.
1-During 1998s, fearing from Iranian revolution, Western countries supported Saddam in Iraqi war against Iran for 8 years. It lead to invasion of Kwait and then invasion of Iraq that imposed billions of dollars on the US and its European allies.
2-During 1990s, fearing from Iran, the US and its allies in the Persian Gulf supported Taliban . It led to Sep. 11 and then invasion of Afghanistan that every one still is paying the price.
3- Fearing from Iran during the past three decades, the West supported corrupted and inefficient dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in the ME. Now they are falling with unpredicted consequences.
3- Still fearing from Iran, Western countries are supporting authoritarian governments with strong linkages to extremism by providing more weapons, and try to high-jack or contributing to high-jacking “Arab Spring” by extremist movements, with unpredicted but severe consequences for the West and the Middle East.
That’s what we should be concerned about.

Tags: | Iran | Iraq | Arab Spring | USFP | Afghanistan |

September 23, 2011

MOISES HERREZUELO LOPEZ, PERLA IR DIVISION, (1)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Nabi Sonboli,
I agree with you in several points.

(news): Outside forces are trying to destabilize Syria by funding and supporting an armed insurrection which does not represent the majority of Syrian society. It is a difference between the opposition within Syrian civil society and the insurgency, which is largely funded by Islamists. “This insurgency is there to destabilize and create a pretext for responsibility to protect NATO intervention in Syria”. “We have information that NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish High Command are in fact drawing up plans for the first military step into Syria,”
“And we also know that NATO is in fact recruiting mujahedeen and jihadists to assist them in their campaign in these various countries.”.

All these news are checked and confirmed so... what is then about the Western "Geo Political Chess Game" here?.

December 2, 2011

Rubens José D. Jr,

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm musician, singer, writer (books and articles) and journalism free lance student. I've been recorded a video playing a music supporting the Siryan people in theyr fight for freedom against the regime and stop to kill civilians and children and I'll like to everyone knows about this message. That tyrant need to know that he is isolated and as much people join this cause is better.
It's been posted on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUkjjIGQJeg

Regards
Rubens José D. Jr.
also I'm on Facebook under the same name

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org