Military Assassination Replaces Political Interaction
The assassination attempt on the life of the Syrian Prime Minister can be considered as the most serious terrorist operation of the Syrian opposition during recent weeks. Why do Bashar’s opponents still prefer military options to sitting at the negotiating table?
A person who decides to carry out an assassination is usually unsuccessful on the ground. If he is certain that he will gain power through legitimate ways or through ways which not violate international laws, he would not resort to such methods. Therefore, such behaviors show that the opposition is faced with numerous problems and are so hopeless and disappointed that they have to resort to assassinations and hostile behavior. With the support the Syrian people have shown for the government, the opposition had to back down; particularly when the popular defense forces entered the scene, the opposition had to retreat. Why assassination? Because it destroys the solidarity of the regime and creates fear and terror, and because they have not reached their goals through legitimate methods. Their supporters, in particular, claim that these governments have written the UN Human Rights Charter and international laws and are against terrorism. But under these conditions, they are confused. A part of the opposition which was supported by the West and some Arab countries has announced that they are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Abu Muhammad al-Joulani, who leads the al-Nusra Front, has officially pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda. Al-Baghdadi, who leads al-Qaeda in Iraq, has also stated that he has united with the al-Nusra Front and formed the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Al-Joulani is Jordanian and the al-Nusra Front is comprised of Jordanian, Lebanese, Palestinian, and Syrian nationals.
During recent days, there have been claims by some Arab and western media about Assad’s usage of chemical weapons. What are the reasons behind such claims?
The main reason behind the hasty proposal of this issue is to raise the spirits of the members of the al-Nusra Front. This group has been faced with military failures and perhaps these claims are aimed at raising their low morale. All members of al-Qaeda in the world, including al-Qaeda in Iraq, support them. Thus, resorting to such a claim of Assad’s usage of chemical weapons can be considered as efforts made by this group to not accept their failures in the political and military areas against the Syrian president.
Furthermore, it is natural that the government of Syria would not use chemical weapons because, under these conditions, it is not to the advantage of this government. These weapons are used when they are advantageous. The government of Syria, which has the upper hand on the ground, has no reason to use weapons of mass destruction. Hence, the same people who attempt to assassinate, do not hesitate to use these weapons. When a bomb is planted in a crowded area, without considering the innocent people who are going to be killed, that is using weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the same logic which allows the planting of bombs, would also allow the usage of chemical weapons. Therefore, it can be said that the logic of a government which intends to maintain its power and keep people satisfied and to not violate international laws is to never use chemical weapons, especially when it knows that this action would create an excuse for foreign intervention. Thus, there are elements who intend to create fear while the government of Syria talks about putting a stop to the violence and has stated many times that it is ready to negotiate with the opposition, to rely on the ballots and to accept the votes of the people. But those who have written the UN Charter talk about continuing the war until Syria is divided.
The issue of chemical weapons has caused a rift in the western-Arab front that opposes the government of Bashar Assad. Just as in 2003, with the issue of Saddam Hussein’s owning of weapons of mass destruction, some countries in Europe, like Germany, have raised some questions with regard to the authenticity of this claim and some insist on its acceptance. Will this claim ultimately lead to the US resorting to a military option in Syria?
It must be reiterated that what has been said with regard to the usage of chemical weapons has only been aimed at raising the spirits of those who fight against Assad. The majority of regions were militarily under the control of al-Qaeda, while the Free Syrian Army which was supported by the US, Israel, and the Arabs separated from them and no longer has any issue to negotiate about. This means that if at a certain time they had military power, they were able to bargain with Bashar Assad, but now they don’t even have that power.
It seems that the Americans cannot use this excuse to intervene in Syria, for their evidence is falsified and has no international basis. But in order to support the opposition, they intend to use these excuses to declare a no-fly-zone. The proposal of a no-fly-zone will not gain the votes of the Security Council, because Russia and China will stand against it and have, hitherto, vetoed it three times. They make dual vetoes. As you know, in the Security Council, dual vetoes have little precedence, for one veto is enough, but they intend to show their decision and pay the political price for it. Russia will no longer allow what happened in Libya to be repeated.
It must also be added that Syria has strong anti-aircraft capabilities and has, several times, downed NATO planes in the Turkish border. If a military intervention takes place in Syria, its first victim would be Israel, for there is a very powerful anti-Israeli power in the Syrian army which can be used. Therefore, no one in the West dares to attempt a military intervention.
Thus, the approach which was used in attacking Iraq, i.e. using the excuse of chemical weapons, cannot be used in Syria. The reason is that Syria is Israel’s neighbor and if it is threatened, then the US would also be threatened and the Iron Dome has not been able to block missiles which have been launched from Gaza.
What is your proposal for solving the crisis in Syria?
The only solution to the crisis in Syria is negotiation and dialogue between the opposition and the government. They cannot solve this problem in the Security Council and the UN, for they have different views about it. This difference has reached a point where Lakhdar Brahimi has tendered his resignation. The Arab League cannot help either, because they have annulled Syria’s membership due to the money spent by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Therefore, the envoy of a league which has expelled Syria cannot negotiate with the government of Assad. Certainly, the Syrian government cannot accept this. Thus, Lakhdar Brahimi cannot solve this problem either. The only solution which seems acceptable is the plan of Iran, Egypt, and Turkey, for this is a regional issue and must be solved in the region.
It is clear to everybody that the conflict in Syria is not between the people and the government, but rather between the US, Israel, and the Arab Sheikhs, which intend to destroy Syria and lead it towards separation and division, on one side and the government of Syria on the other. In other words, this is the anti-resistance Israeli line which intends to destroy the capabilities of the people of the region who are against Israel.