Syria set its price for cooperating with the US in Iraq when it murdered Gemayel. That is, in addition to pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights, the US will be expected to accept the reassertion of Syrian/Iranian control over all of Lebanon through a new government controlled by Hizbullah and its allies which will replace the Saniora government.Although not to be discounted out of hand, and although Ms. Glick possesses more regional knowledge than some yahoo blogger from Tennessee, the above demands, to use the local colloquialism, ain't gonna get met. To do so would require Bush reversing course on every single speech he's made regarding the GWoT to date, effectively capping his legacy and neutering any further effectiveness we might hope to have in the region beyond today.
Ms. Glick goes on to imagine the effects of an Iraq retreat and a capitulation with Syria and Iran, a nightmare most might agree upon, but once again it points out why Bush would likely refuse to play such a dead hand.
For the record, can we assume Syria's relationship with Iran is rock solid? The Assad regime is a tight-knit group of Ba'athists while the country itself leans Arab Sunni. Iran is overtly Shia Persian. Could the Gemayel hit have been ordered directly from Tehran as a message to Assad lest he get wobbly regarding pressure surrounding the Hariri tribunal? Is there any chance Assad might mysteriously go away should Iran be successful in wrestling control of both Lebanon and Iraq?
While all of this is going down we have our original man-in-a-secure-location, Vice President Cheney, visiting the Saudi Royals. As Ms. Glick points out, the House of Saud is a little nervous about all this. The Bush family (and previous presidents) have had good relations with Prince Bandar and others in Riyadh, a wild card yet to be played.
No comments:
Post a Comment