Pages

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Tainting the Rebels?

When you read that we'd be giving the mullahs of Iran a gift by attacking their nuclear infrastructure because Iranians normally fearful of the regime that they hate will rally around the mullahs, remember Syria under Assad.

Given that prior to the revolt that Assad said that hatred of and opposition to Israel were the common beliefs that united Assad and the people of Syria, isn't it odd that Assad can't seem to unite his people under that banner? Even the wider Sunni Arab world is committed to overthrowing the Assad regime even after Israel attacks the Assad regime's assets?

Five weeks ago, the head of the Arab League capped a summit in Qatar with an impassioned appeal to strengthen the rebel fighters trying to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad. On Sunday, he denounced Israeli's airstrike into Assad's territory as a dangerous threat to regional stability.

The contrast reflects a fundamental conundrum for Arab leaders.

Nearly all Arab states have sided with the rebel forces seeking to topple Assad and inflict a blow to his main ally, Iran. And Sunday's attack by Israeli warplanes in Syria — the second in three days — was the type of punishing response many Arab leaders have urged from the West against Assad after more than two years of civil war.

Sure, Arab leaders issue statements against Israel. But they continue to back the Syrian rebels. And they don't mind Israel taking shots that hurt their common enemies Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah. Israel's action has not, as the common charge would have you believe, "tainted" the rebels. No more than Iran's heavy support for Assad has "tainted" the Assad regime among Assad's supporters. It's a funny thing, in a civil war each side wants to win and foreign support is wanted rather than feared.

So if we do find we must attack Iran to keep them from going nuclear, make sure that it is the first blow in a campaign to overthrow the mullahs. People might rally to the regime--at least in the short run--if the air campaign seems like an isolated event and not the beginning of regime change that they could benefit from.

And regime change will help us, too. Attacking Iran can only buy time. I'd rather just buy time if that's all we can do, but I'd rather have a non-nutball regime in Tehran that I don't worry will use nukes if they get them.