Deepening chaos in Syria, in particular, could dash any remaining hopes for a Middle East peace agreement, several analysts said. It could also alter the American rivalry with Iran for influence in the region and pose challenges to the United States’ greatest ally in the region, Israel.
Chaos could dash hopes of a peace agreement including Syria? Really? People still believe that is possible? Syria has shown no interest in negotiating other than to gain tactical space by getting Western help to keep their rickety dictatorship going a little longer. Alliance with Iran's mullah regime is the way Assad has bet his future. We'd be better off squeezing Syria to get them to flip out of fear than hoping we can coax Assad with goodies.
The next sentence about altering our competition is unclear to me. That would be a good thing, since chaos in Syria or regime change would deprive Iran of a tool used to spark chaos in the wider region. In the short run, Syria or Iran could try to sow chaos to keep Boy Assad in power. And in the medium run, chaos as Syria tries to sort itself out will pose dangers as well as opportunities. Loose chemical weapons or the chance that the region could be a Somalia-like environment for jihadis are real problems.
But if the Assad regime goes down, that should help the region in the long run. It could even be a benefit if we try to manage and guide what comes next. And it strikes me as morally wrong to say that a tyrant with WMD (chemicals for sure, possibly bio stuff, and whatever nuke programs--not weapons, to be clear--the North Koreans are working on that Israel hasn't bombed) or jihadis underground should get a free pass out of fear of chaos to oppress their own people and foment unrest of their own choosing on the region.
But I will say that perhaps the author meant that second sentence to an "on the other hand" statement rather than a continuation of the first which describes a problem. That's a possibility because the story is about Syria and Jordan and the last sentence clearly has to refer to the chance that unrest in Jordan could end that country's peace treaty with Israel. And the article concludes by quoting an analyst who thinks on balance, short-run chaos in Syria anyway is a good thing by depriving Iran of a key ally. And perhaps my beef really shouldn't be with the writer but with the several analysts who clearly represent a school of thought on Syria.
But the bizarre first sentence is unreal regardless of whose thinking it represents, even if it has poisoned my reading of the next one. Even assuming only the first sentence is the offending one, it is pretty bad. Assad keeps pulling the football away after convincing the West that really, this time for sure, an outreached hand from the West can lead Syria to flip to the West and make peace with Israel. And every time we run towards the ball, we end up on our back, staring at the sky and wondering what we did wrong.
Chaos in Syria is a frightening possibility for a number of reasons, but so is the image of a boot stomping on a neck forever in Syria under Assad's regime and their state-sponsored terror that causes unrest now in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq. That type of reasoning would have led us to support the Soviet Union back in 1991. We did manage that far more dangerous transition.
A lot of people in Syria apparently want the opportunities that chaos can provide rather than endure the oppression and poverty that stability has brought them. They at least deserve our moral support. And if they bring down the Assad regime, they deserve our help to build something we can all like rather than just doing nothing and saying we hope things turn out all right. And even if it doesn't turn out all right, there is long-term advantage in standing against despots and with their people. Good things will happen eventually, if not in Syria then elsewhere, as people understand that while we may not be able to help them all the time with all our resources, we want them to win and be free.
But hey, look at the bright side you foreign policy realists! Maybe Assad will get his security forces to kill tens of thousands of protesters, jail the survivors, and reimpose stability! Then you can get on with the nuanced smart diplomacy of outreach. Remember, enemies are just friends we haven't made yet, right? And who knows what we need to give them to get them to be our friend? The possibilities are endless!
