News Desk | Middle East Zone

The protests in Syria have taken a back-seat to the rapidly unfolding events in Libya with the rebels seizing Tripoli and ending Moammar Gadhafi’s long rule despite not capturing the eccentric despot. In the meantime, the Syrian people have continued to demonstrate and have not stopped calling for ruler Bashar al-Assad to step down so they can experience freedom and express their opinion openly without retribution.

The situation in Syria is different from other Arab countries since President al-Assad and his entourage are from the Alawite sect while the majority of the population are Sunni Muslims. Thus, the Sunni majority is fighting for more than just the right to vote for their candidate of choice but also to be empowered and to feel included as part of the ruling establishment.

For the last several decades, the al-Assad family through the late Hafez and his son Bashar have ruled Syria with an iron fist promoting fellow Alawites to critical positions in the government and allowing them a free hand in many important sectors such as the economy. The Sunnis have long felt marginalized and their frustration with the regime has reached a boiling point. The main concern is the fact that al-Assad is not willing to abdicate while the people are becoming more angry and radicalized with every casualty falling as a result of assaults by the Syrian military and government thugs following the orders of Bashar and his brother Maher.

It is hard to see al-Assad ever regaining his previous strong grip and unquestioned control over his country but the road to freedom is quite long and dangerous for the Syrian people. Below is a list of entities and countries which not only want Bashar to stay in power but also hope he can gain back absolute control over the streets:

1) Iran’s radical clerics: The regime in Tehran would certainly be one of the first to be hard hit by the loss of a close ally such as al-Assad in Damascus. The two governments share a religious bond since both al-Assad and the extremists in Iran see the Sunnis as a threat to their agenda to dominate the region. Syria’s President is an Alawite, an offshoot of the Shiite Muslims, and Iran’s regime and population are majority Shiites who see themselves as a minority in a region dominated by Sunnis. Thus, al-Assad and his cronies are a minority in a Sunni-dominated Syria while the Iranian regime has the same problem but on a regional basis since Iran and Iraq as well as tiny Bahrain are the only Shiite majority countries in a region dominated by the Sunnis.

2) Hezbollah: The Shiite party in Lebanon relies heavily on Iran’s aid, both financially and militarily. Syria’s al-Assad serves as the link between Hezbollah and Iran since the Syrian-Lebanese border allows for the smuggling of weaponry, military experts and much more. In addition, the ruling al-Assad family, with its minions in Lebanon, offers a political blanket for Hezbollah. The Shiite party overthrew the March 14th alliance from the Lebanese government to assume control the Lebanese cabinet considering Hezbollah now has a majority when counting its allies. Bashar al-Assad’s fall from grace and the formation of a new government in Syria will deprive Hezbollah of a crucial hub for the supplies flowing from Tehran. Furthermore, Hezbollah’s allies in Lebanon will be greatly weakened since they have a relatively small influence and their limited strength is derived from followers who blindly support the Syrian regime based on their conviction that it is wise to side with a powerful leadership.

3) Hamas: Like Hezbollah, Hamas is a beneficiary of both the regime in Tehran and al-Assad. The Palestinian radical group would be another organization to feel the pressure if al-Assad is overthrown. Despite being a Sunni party like the majority of the Palestinians, Hamas relies heavily on financial aid from Iran while Syria offers the extremist group refuge and training ground free from Israeli threat inside the Syrian territories. Hamas would likely survive longer as a force in the Palestinian territories, specifically in Gaza, when compared to Hezbollah’s chances at usurping Lebanese politics if al-Assad’s regime collapsed.

4) Russia: The veto yielding nation has resisted implementing any sanctions on the Syrian regime and threatened to vote against any such resolution in the United Nations. The Russians see al-Assad as a regional counter-force to the growing influence of the United States. Bashar has fast become one of the last rulers considered to be pro-Russian as opposed to the wave of pro-American regimes in the region such as Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and UAE. The Russian government would not want to lose another leader of a country which is considered as a client state as the Syrian regime purchases most if not all of its heavy weaponry from the Russians.

The Chinese are also opposed to Bashar’s ouster for a number of reasons including the fact that China has increasingly lost friends in the region as many have shifted towards the U.S. sphere of influence. Most recently, there has been an increase in the contact between the Chinese and Israeli governments which is not surprising despite the two countries establishing normal diplomatic relations as late as 1992 due to China’s stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Israelis and the Chinese have strong trade ties, particularly with the Chinese acquiring technology and weaponry from the Israelis since they cannot get such advanced arms and specs from the United States.

Finally, the state of Israel could be considered as one of the beneficiaries from the al-Assad regime despite the controversy this might raise amongst those not well-versed in the region’s geopolitics. The Israeli government was rooting for al-Assad to remain in charge at the beginning of the protests, in early 2011, out of grave concern about the unknown and/or a potential takeover by Sunnis radicals if Bashar lost power.

Israel prefers to have al-Assad in power since his rule and even that of his father have witnessed an evident calm on the Syrian-Israeli border with the Syrian government not once seeking to resist the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. In fact, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar have both sought to use their Lebanese allies, in specific Hezbollah, to act as a resistance force against Israel as witnessed on a number of occasions in the last 20 years. Under Bashar’s rule, not a single bullet has been fired by the Syrian military in the direction of the Israelis.

Both al-Assad and the Israeli government try to overstate the threat posed by the opposing government. In reality these exaggerations are a blatant ruse used by Bashar to manipulate the emotions of the Syrian public and an attempt by the Israeli government to pressure the U.S. Congress into providing additional military aid. The Syrian public is against Israel because of the occupation of the Golan Heights and because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, Bashar focuses on that sensitive topic to foster hatred towards Israel while diverting attention from his oppressive rule.

For those who question this unspoken for but mutually beneficial relationship between the Israeli government and al-Assad regime, just take note of the Israeli strike against Syria in 2007 which targeted a location reportedly used to manufacture and perhaps store unconventional weapons. The Syrian leader did not retaliate against Israel and the Syrian military did not engage in any attacks against the Israelis.

Bashar al-Assad did not use Hezbollah or Hamas to create instability for the Israelis and the only time he allowed any sort of chaos on the Syrian-Israeli front is in 2011 during a critical time when the Syrian protesters were demanding their rights. At that point al-Assad and his military turned a blind eye as pro-Palestinians and Palestinian refugees in Syria tried to protest the Israeli occupation by breaching the security zone between the Syrians and Israelis. Bashar believed his regime can use Israel as a distraction and shift the fury of the public towards the Israeli government as opposed to their demand for freedom and the ouster of al-Assad.

The Libyan rebels appear to have assumed controls of the majority of the key cities in the country including most of the capital Tripoli yet the whereabouts of once strongman Moammar Gadhafi remain unknown. Two of his sons have been reportedly captured despite the European and American media issuing conflicting reports about the names of those two held by the rebels.

The main issue now is how the situation in Libya will evolve with the Transitional National Council (TNC) virtually in charge of the country. A few weeks ago, the rebel military commander Abdul Fattah Younes was assassinated raising concerns about discord and lack of unity amongst those who have been fighting the long-time dictator Gadhafi. The relevant yet basic questions are whether the TNC can guarantee safety for the civilians and if food and other necessary supplies can flow freely for those most in need.

The Libyan people and the world must be concerned with the nature of the disorganized rebels and the widespread weaponry. Doctors, engineers, shop owners, university students and teachers have all joined the ranks of the rebel force and all have little if any experience handling guns and rifles so this could easily create the undesirable recipe for disaster with accidents and personal feuds feasibly turning into deadly confrontations.

Libyans must seek a reconciliatory approach and avoid revenge killings:

As for the bigger picture, there will certainly be members of the TNC who are both hungry for power and seeking to further their own agenda at the expense of the other members and the general public. The transition from decades of autocratic and brutal rule to a democratic system will not be easy but the first, slow steps must be taken carefully while trying to preserve the police force and dismantling the rebel force without causing any problems. The mistakes which were made after the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq must not be repeated in Libya. Thus, the police and security forces must be maintained to ensure order and law while the military must not be dismantled since that could create a considerable group of jobless and dangerous men who could easily turn into violent opposition to voice their displeasure.

In simple terms, the transition to democracy will take time but the initial stage is the most critical with the TNC playing the role of the guardian of Libya’s people. The TNC must ensure there are no reprisals against former Gadhafi forces which were simply doing their job and obeying orders in exchange for their salary. Only the regime’s head figures, including the dictator and his prominent sons, should be prosecuted along with other key members of the brutal government. Some had no choice but to follow the dictator and his cronies out of fear or simply because they were coerced to obey orders.

Libyans must be patient because building a democratic system is a long-term project:

Beyond the potential humanitarian crisis, there are other difficult yet surmountable concerns such as the tremendous rebuilding process needed to get life back to normal in several key cities and towns along the Libyan coastline. Once the institutions are built and the construction plans are turned into reality, the attention will turn to creating long-term jobs for the youth and the unemployed as well as those who turned into fighters with the rebel force during the Libyan revolution.

Nothing would hurt the future of Libya more than an uncontrollable and rising unemployment rate. Regardless of all these apparent issues, the people of Libya can finally move forward after over four decades of living under fear of reprisals for simply voicing a concern or exercising any of their basic rights such as freedom of speech. The onus is on the TNC to ensure this will be as painless of a transition as possible considering the various obstacles facing the Libyans as they seek to move forward.

Syria: Who Wants Dictator Bashar al-Assad to Remain in Power?

Libya: Life after Dictator Gadhafi is Gone