IRANIAN DOUBLESPEAK

In April, Israel's leading newspaper (Ha'Aretz) published a somewhat sarcastic and somewhat tongue-in-cheek piece by Akiva Eldar. His thrust was that, based on multiple anti-WMD statements from Iranian leaders, Israel should seriously consider recalibrating its position on Iran.

Eldar argued that Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa (an authoritative religious edict) banning the production, storage and use of nuclear weapons. Eldar also cited a Washington Post piece by Iran’s Foreign Minister contending that Iran opposes weapons of mass destruction.

One doubts that Eldar’s piece altered Netanyahu’s position on Iran. Still, being charitable, Eldar’s arguments may contain some measure of merit. That said, there is a flip side to Eldar’s half-hearted and lightly-salted sentiments about Iran’s allegedly absent nuclear aspirations.

In truth, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader (The Rehbar), did indeed issued a fatwa condemning and banning the development and use of nuclear weapons. And, pointedly, absolutely nothing of import happens in Iran without the imprimatur (covert or overt) of Iran's Supreme Leader. That should have been the end of any discussion about nuclear enrichment, but it was not. Uranium enriching centrifuges are increasingly whirring in Iran.

Enter Fordo and Natanz. Fordo is Iran’s previously secret underground nuclear enrichment facility. Indeed, Iran had long denied that any Fordo-like facility even existed. And thus the plot thickens.


 

Until 2009, Iran had repeatedly and vehemently denied the existence of any nuclear enrichment facility except at Natanz. Where? Until 2002, Iran had also repeatedly denied that there were nuclear enrichment operations afoot at Natanz.


 

In due course, foreign intelligence services exposed the inescapable truths that Iran’s denials about both Natanz and Fordo were unmitigated lies, calculated deceptions and Machievellian disinformation. Enter Ahmadinejad.


 

Ahmadinejad is Iran’s belligerent President. He vehemently denies that his murky past conceals a sordid association with the American hostages taken by Iranian students in 1979. However, photographic evidence and hostage testimony convincingly suggest that Ahmadinejad is simply mendacious.



No matter, Ahmadinejad’s bellicosity (expressly including, but not limited to) threats to wipe Israel off the map ---presumably possible only with Nukes--- arises directly from and is a product of his impressive (or is it oppressive?) ideological heritage.


 

Ahmadinejad's psycho-political lineage is grounded in the ideological posturing repeatedly adumbrated by Iranian luminaries such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Mezbah Yazdi. The latter was Ahmadinejad’s long time spiritual mentor.


 

Arguably, Ayatollah Mohammed-Taqi Mezbah-Yazdi is the most conservative, the most powerful and the most influential Shiite oligarch in Iran. He is justifiably known to his adversaries as "Professor Crocodile."


 

Yazdi is a recognized authority on Shiite Islam. He believes that the Shiite Messiah (The Mahdi aka The Hidden Imam who has been living in occult occlusion since the ninth century) will come only when there is sufficient chaos on earth and only when the primary source of all evil on earth (Zionism) is blotted out.

It is critical to note that Ayatollah Yazdi is a proponent of the Shiite doctrine of Takkiya. What is Takkiya? It is a Quran-based doctrine (Q. 2:225; 3:28; 16:106) which affirms the right of a Shiite to dissimulate (i.e. to lie, deceive, mislead, delude or hoodwink) when it comports with a Shiite’s need to protect his Islamic viability, vitality and well-being.


 

But wait. There’s more. Yazdi is an Ayatollah. By definition, an ayatollah is an infallible interpreter of Shiite Islam and, therefore, a source of emulation. That status is remarkably authoritative. That honorific designation lends commanding weight to the principles upon which Yazdi and his followers operate.


 

So, what's the bottom line to the above? Israel and Western leaders should feel constrained to question if The Rehbar and Iranian polemicists (who publicly speak against the acquisition of nukes) are premeditatedly and privately employing some mutated form of Takkiya.


 

Are the Iranians using diplomatic doublespeak to deceive, mislead and lull the West into complacency? Why else would Iranian centrifuges have been secreted in an undisclosed, underground, concrete-hardened, nuclear enrichment facility? Are Iranian protestations against nuclear enrichment a cleverly crafted mask to conceal contrary intentions? 


 

That conclusion is almost inescapable. In fact, it is well documented (in compelling books by Gertz and Pollock) that the Iranians have a deplorable history of troubling treachery and serial deception.


 

In sum, when contemplating the prospect of a nuclear Iran, it may be prudent to remember that disinformation, deception and doublespeak were not invented by George Orwell!

What's Worse Than War?

“The only thing worse than war is a nuclear armed Iran!” That sabre-rattling litany is overspreading America. That notion is throbbing on main street. It is bubbling into back streets. It is pulsating on Wall Street. But does that proposition make sense? History may have something to say about that.

Before 1970 there were only five nuclear armed nations. They were the United States, Russia, China, England and France. They were the charter members of Club Nuke. They tried to blackball further membership. So, they created the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (aka NPT). Signatories could not join Club Nuke.

One hundred and ninety nations signed the NPT. Even North Korea and Iran signed the NPT. Then the pot started to boil. But neither North Korea nor Iran was stirring the pot. So who was?

India and Pakistan both refused to sign the NPT. Neither was bound by NPT provisions. In fact, India and Pakistan were already arch enemies. Neither would forego acquisition of any contrivance than might insure its survival.

So, India initiated “Operation Smiling Buddha” to develop nukes. India conducted a successful nuclear test in 1974. India characterized that test as a “peaceful nuclear explosion.” That incongruity aside, Pakistan did not stand idly by.

Pakistan had fought and lost the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Pakistan had reasonably anticipated –but did not get- American support.

Pakistan then fought and lost Bangladesh in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Pakistan realized that it could only rely on itself. To counter India’s growing nuclear prowess, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously declared: “…even if we have to eat grass, we will make nuclear bombs.”

Bhutto further fulminated: “…The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have
the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?”

Pakistan conducted a successful nuclear test in 1973. Pakistan got its atomic bomb in 1998.

That year, India conducted Operation Shatki. It resulted in a successful thermonuclear test. That prompted India to declare a “no first use” and
“retaliation only” policy. Since then, India has operated a “strategically active,but operationally dormant” nuclear policy.

Pakistan and India fought the Kargil Conflict in 1999. By then, both parties had nukes, but neither side used them. Since then, the parties have stomached a mutually suspicious détente. But the nuclear proliferation pot boiled over elsewhere.

Nukes had found their way to North Korea. True to form, North Korea was about to create another provocation.

In 1994 the United States and North Korea signed The Agreed Framework. It required Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear reactors. They were part of a covert nuclear weapons program. In exchange, the United States supplied North Korea with fuel oil.

By 2002 the United States had learned that North Korea was violating the Agreed Framework. North Korea was covertly operating a uranium enrichment program to produce nuclear weapons. So, the U.S. suspended oil shipments.

In response, North Korea restarted its nuclear facilities. It expelled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Then, North Korea simply withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Within three years North Korea detonated a nuclear device. It exploded
a second nuclear device in 2009. Predictably, the U.N. condemned the tests and imposed tighter sanctions. But North Korea’s nuclear program remained operational.

North Korea has now agreed to yet another nuclear weapons freeze. In return, the U.S.A will supply 240,000 tons of food aid. So, North Korea’s pattern continues: Bluster, Break Agreement, Brinksmanship, Blackmail, Begin Over Again.

And yet, in spite of North Korea’s repeated provocations, its relentless deception and its pathological depravity, North Korea has not fired a nuke at any adversary.

More importantly, over the strident objections of its five charter members, India, Pakistan and North Korea have been grudgingly admitted into Club Nuke. Does that suggest that Iran is preparing its own ticket for admission?

Is Iran a greater threat than North Korea? Is the Iranian regime less stable or more paranoid and fratricidal than Pakistan? Was it not Pakistan that transferred nuclear know-how to North Korea?

Admittedly, even a non-nuclear Iran is treacherous. A nuclear armed Iran would be more dangerous. But, in spite of Iran’s bellicosity, is that scenario overstated? Perhaps of necessity, nuclear empowered nations have not –thus far- permitted themselves to be frenzied, irrational or fanatical.

And yet, Iran’s anti-Israel and anti-West diatribes have been relentless, ruthless and demonic. The rantings spewing from Tehran reek with premeditation and malevolence. Iran’s habitual treachery and legendary duplicity cannot be discounted. This is especially true in light of Iranian doublespeak.

Ayatollah Khamenei long ago issued a fatwa (Islamic edict) stating that the use of nukes is against Islam. But he has also asserted with equal vehemence that Israel is a cancer which must be expunged. Khamenei and Iran cannot have it both ways. So, is Iran’s Supreme leader simply practicing the Shiite doctrine of “taqiyya?” That concept authorizes deception to achieve a greater goal.

Where does that leave us? Is a nuclear armed Iran the only thing worse than war? An adequate answer is elusive. But two decidedly apt considerations are chilling: “In nuclear war, all men are cremated equal” and “We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can’t bomb it into peace!”

Nukes & The Original Aryans

“No country without an atomic bomb can properly call itself independent.” Ahmadinejad did not say that. Charles de Gaulle did!

If spoken by Ahmadinejad, those words would be a demagogic diatribe by an apocalyptic nutcase. But in the mouth of President de Gaulle, that viewpoint was an expression of geopolitical reality.

Back then (1954-1960), nuclear weapons were a national status symbol and
a path to international prestige. So, France acquired Nukes. That is also
substantially why Iran is hell bent on joining Club Nuke.

So, why does Iran want what it does not need? The answer involves a history lesson.

Iran was not always Iran. For centuries it was Persia. That is Iran’s glory. In fact, Persia may be the first truly significant empire in history. That may be arguable. But what is not subject to debate is that Persia’s celebrated Emperor, Cyrus, was the first person in history to be called “The Great.” That is of great significance to Iran.

Under Cyrus’ reign, the Persian empire stretched from India to Egypt and Greece. During Cyrus’ benevolent rule, disparate ethnicities and subject nations were permitted to conduct their own affairs and to practice their own customs and beliefs.

In addition, Cyrus bestowed upon the world its first charter of human rights. In recognition of his immense accomplishments, Cyrus is extolled as the Father of the Iranian nation. Cyrus-The-Great was and is the focal point of Iranian history and of Iran’s national psyche.

Not tangentially, Cyrus even emancipated the Jews of Persia. They had been brought there in 586 BCE by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. He had conquered the Kingdom of Judah and deported its Jews. Cryus permitted the Jews to return to their homeland. In gratitude for his largesse, the Jews labeled Cyrus as “The Anointed Of The Lord.”

Cyrus’ towering greatness is illustrated by an anecdote concerning President Harry Truman. He was, not incidentally, the American President who ordered that an atomic bomb be detonated over Japan. President Truman also had the outlandish temerity –some call it Chutzpa- to formally recognize the existence of the State Of Israel.

Shortly after that momentous event, Truman is said to have been present at a party. A quarrelsome guest approached the President. The guest reproached Truman by questioning: “Who in the hell do you think you are recognizing Israel?” To which provocation Truman allegedly threw his hands skyward and haughtily exclaimed: “I am Cyrus!”

Ahmadinejad is no Cyrus. In actuality, nothing significant happens in Iran without the tacit imprimatur of its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But he too is no Cyrus. Both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei assuredly recognize that they are but existential blips in Iran’s long history dating back to Cyrus. And that’s the rub.

Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and Iranian nationalists clearly aspire to recapture the glory of Cyrus and the Persian Empire. That is not an evil. That is a goal to be applauded. That national aspiration could be as noble, as elegant and as inspirational as was Cyrus.

Regrettably, the path to regional hegemony pursued by contemporary Iran is perverted by its fixation on acquiring what it wants but does not need. Iran must now distance itself from the notion that a nation needs nukes to survive or to acquire eminence.

Twenty-first century Iran is not cold war era France which thought it needed nukes for prestige. But, is there a contemporary nation with significant international stature, extensive influence and hegemonic capacity that does not possess nukes? With the possible exception of Brazil, none exist. That is the conundrum facing Iran…and the world.

By virtue of its size, its geographic location, its resources, its demographics, its culture, its history and even its name, Iran believes –with abundant justification – that it deserves to be a regional power.

It is noteworthy that the name Iran derives from the Sanskrit term Arya.
In fact, Persians are the original Aryans. Arya means elevated, exalted
or noble. It denotes a patrician culture. It refers to the upper crust
of society. It implies ascendancy, preeminence and dominance.

The opposite of Aryan is Anaryan. A person so classified is deemed to
be a low-class, plebian peasant. Anaryan is arguably the opposite of everything Iranian. As such, Iranians habitually refer to Arabs as Anaryans.

Underneath the bluster and bellicosity, what Iran really wants is to
return to its Aryan origins. It aspires to be a noble, exalted and prestigious regional hegemon. That eminent status is implicit it its
name. Iran does not need nukes to achieve that goal.

But, considering the braggadocio & bravado about its growing nuclear prowess, Iran’s leaders should consider Margaret Thatcher’s trenchant aphorism: “Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't.”

Dragon Breath And Bear Claws

What do bears and dragons have in common? Nothing. Well, not exactly. That’s only true if dragons are mythical animals. On the other hand, even if dragons are mythical, their contemporary manifestations are all too real.

Take a moment to think about bears and dragons. Real or mythical, they are dangerous. On the one hand, bears are not terribly subtle. They often seem clumsy. When agitated, they tend to maul anything that moves nearby. On the other hand, it is also never wise to antagonize a dragon. Dragons have bad breath. When stressed, they spew fire.

So, let’s talk bears and dragons. Does anyone remember the Russian Bear? Oh yes, it’s alive and well. It certainly was not hibernating while the Security Council was deliberating about Syria. When it came time to vote, the Russian Bear acted completely in character. It flat-out mauled the Security Council’s resolution with one swipe of its massive bear claw. How could even a casual observer not see that claw coming?

That said, is there any doubt about the rising reality of the Chinese Dragon? Of course not. In fact, the Chinese Dragon has a long standing pattern of passively prowling around while just watching and waiting to exhale fire. The Chinese expressly refer to that calculated behavior as Deng Xiaoping’s Twenty-four Character strategy.

Deng’s policy requires the Dragon to observe affairs calmly, to bide its time, to maintain a low profile and to never claim leadership. That is precisely how the Chinese Dragon conducted itself while the Security Council agonized about censuring Syria. Indeed, The Dragon was delighted to let the Russian Bear lead the veto and take considerable heat for opposing the proposed resolution.

In the aftermath of the Russian and Chinese vetoes, can anyone dispute the perilous reality of The Bear and The Dragon on prowl at the U.N.? Just ask, Susan Rice, the American Ambassador to the U.N. She literally fumed that the Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon are absolutely “disgusting.” Did she expect something else from bear stench and dragon breath?

Ambassador Rice may not like dealing with The Bear and The Dragon. But she should have been wise enough not to even hope for their votes. Regrettably, the good Ambassador’s considerable pique suggests that she simply may not be sufficiently attuned to The Bear and The Dragon. Why else was she so viscerally upset when both Russia and China acted precisely as even a casual observer would have foreseen?

The Russian Bear has vested interests in Syria. It sells weapons to Syria. It does significant business with Syria. It has a budding naval base at Tartous, Syria. It has a long-standing relationship with Syria’s Alawite government. In fact, Russia has been aligned with Syria for decades. And not least of all, Russia does not have a reputation as a fickle friend. As such, The Bear’s veto was a foregone conclusion.

So, too was The Dragon’s veto. China has a long standing policy of strict non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Even when The Dragon gives substantial aid to or invests big bucks in other countries, it expressly does so without conditions and without strings attached.

Ambassador Rice assuredly knows this about The Dragon. She surely knows that China refused to intervene with its client Sudan about the latter's unconscionable behavior in Darfur. She clearly knows that China was less-than-pleased with the West’s armed intervention that helped topple Qadaffi. Indeed, she knows that neither China nor Russia voted for the U.N. resolution upon which NATO relied to bomb Libya.

Maybe it’s simply that Ambassador Rice was too focused on toppling the al-Assad regime. Maybe she did not properly pause to appreciate precisely what the Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon are really all about. Perhaps she was just peeved that The Bear and The Dragon screwed up her hard work to pressure Syria to alter its reprehensible behavior. Ms. Rice must have harbored fond hopes that this time The Bear and The Dragon would act conscionably. Wrong!

The problem is that the Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon naturally comport themselves as do bears and dragons. That is precisely why they are known as The Russian Bear and The Chinese Dragon. Their behaviors do not arise out of concerned conscience. They do not pontificate. Their acts are not grounded in compassion. Their comportment is not calculated to empathize, moralize or democratize.

Quite the contrary. The Russian Bear and The Chinese Dragon are named for creatures consumed with self-interest and self-preservation. They –those animals, the Russians and the Chinese – customarily pursue their objectives ruthlessly and relentlessly.

That said, it is no wonder that the Russian Bear saw fit to bare its claws at the Security Council. It was not at all unexpected that the Chinese Dragon would consort with the Russian Bear to extrude its own considerable talons. Regrettably, the American Eagle’s wings were also summarily –if temporarily- clipped at last Saturday’s session of the U.N. Security Council.

What does that say about the American Eagle’s ability to effectively launch itself into more critical matters? Can and will The Eagle confront Iran’s drive to join Club Nuke?

Whose Lunch Is The Dragon Eating?

China! Now that’s an economic, demographic and geopolitical mouthful. In fact, China is a much bigger now than it ever used to be. O.K., so China is not getting geographically larger, but it is growing in virtually every other respect.

But wait, the Chinese prefer to say that China is rising. That’s a semantic nicety. It’s an artful euphemism. It’s a diplomatically astute technique that cleverly deflects the world’s attention from the fact that China is expanding everywhere. The Chinese Dragon is desperately trying to satiate its prodigious appetite for resources. In short, the Chinese Dragon is eating the world’s lunch.

Now, let’s be crystal clear. The Chinese Dragon has a right to eat lunch. In fact, the self-interests of the Chinese Dragon do not differ dramatically from the self-preservation needs of the Russian Bear or the American Eagle. But with about nine times Russia’s population and four times the number of Americans, the Chinese Dragon needs a whole lot more to eat to keep it happy. And, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But seeing the Chinese Dragon gobble up resources is not easy to watch. It’s a scenario that merits closer inspection.

Take a minute and consider the Burmese. You may remember them. They share a border with China. They now call their country Myanmar. Well, most everyone calls it Myanmar except its most famous citizen, Aung San Suu Kyi, who still calls it Burma.

Burma is rich in natural resources. Burma has the oil, gas, timber, minerals and water resources that the Dragon eyes with envy. So, the Dragon eagerly chose to construct the 3.6 billion dollar Myistone dam on Burma’s Irrawaddy River. China had also begun building oil and gas pipelines across the old Burma Road into China. That pipeline project costs 2.5 billion dollars. In the process, the Dragon will get oil, gas and hydro-electric resources while the Burmese will get cash. Sounds good, but not so fast.

The Burmese may be poor, but they are not dumb. The Myistone dam would have destroyed one of the world’s most bio-diverse hotspots. It would have displaced ten thousand Kachin tribesmen, submerged many of their unique cultural heritage sites and flooded the rain forest.

Amazingly, Burma's ruling junta (now cloaked in civilian garb) just nixed the whole dam project while it was being built. That ticked off the Chinese Dragon which will lose both its multi-billion dollar investment and the hydro-electricity that would have been generated, 90% of which was to be sent to China. But, as many Burmese fumed: “Dam be damned!”

So, what made the Burmese abruptly alter course and risk the ire of the Dragon? That’s easy. To paraphrase the Burmese: “We got tired of the Dragon trotting into our kitchen, eating our lunch and then leaving the rubbish.” That is certainly a simplification of what happened. But, to the Dragon’s chagrin, the Irrawaddy dam project is now on indefinite hold.

The oil/gas pipeline projects across Burma from the Andaman Sea into China are now also undergoing extensive scrutiny and reconsideration. The Dragon is anxiously watching those developments. Those oil/gas pipelines would save China 1,200 kilometers of transport across sea lanes through the Strait of Malacca. Those pipelines, once operational, would have mitigated China’s worrisome “Malacca dilemma.” The demise of the pipeline projects would be a significant and strategic loss to the Dragon. Can you feel hot Dragon breath?

The Mekong River is another case in point. It is another “resource” that the Dragon wants to drink. So, what’s going on with the Mekong? Well, for starters, the Mekong is not just a Vietnamese river. Quite the contrary, about half of the mighty Mekong flows through China where the Mekong is known as the Lancang River.

What’s the problem? The Mekong is Vietnam’s lifeblood. But the Mekong is now experiencing its lowest water level in fifty years. Less water means less fish. Less fish mean less fishermen. Less water also means less irrigation. Less irrigation yields less rice. Less water means less shrimp. Less fish, less shrimp and less rice mean less commerce. The Vietnamese are justifiably concerned. Enter the Dragon.

Back up in China on the Lancang River, the Dragon is watching the completion of the Xiowan dam. When completed this spring, it will be as tall as the Eiffel tower, i.e. about as tall as a 100 story skyscraper. The Xiowan Dam will create a lake that is 820 feet deep. More importantly, the dam will further deplete the amount of water flowing down the Mekong into Vietnam. Do you catch my drift: Less water less….

Not unexpectedly, the Dragon did not consult the Vietnamese Tiger about the dam’s ominous repercussions. In fact, the Dragon has repeatedly refused to enter into a single water-sharing agreement with any of the Dragon’s riparian neighbors. In fact, in its thirst for water resources, the Dragon has become the world’s most aggressive water hegemon. Still, the Dragon needs water to drink. That is elementary to the Dragon’s very survival.

And so it goes. The Dragon must drink and the Dragon must eat. Indeed, the Chinese Dragon has a prodigious thirst and a voracious appetite. That should leave the rest of the world wondering: Whose lunch will the Dragon eat next?

Untying The Syrian Knot

Five years ago, I chanced to be exiting a Damascus restaurant. A piece of art was hanging askew above that establishment’s portal. The painting depicted three men. The man in the middle was deceased Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. He was flanked by current Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. The third image was the likeness of Sheikh Hasan Nazralleh, radical Shiite leader of Hezbollah.

I was curious at the seemingly awkward juxtaposition of Sheikh Nazrallah with Presidents Hafez and Bashir al-Assad. I queried the restaurant’s proprietor: “Why is a Hezbollah terrorist pictured with Syria’s presidents?” The proprietor’s response was illuminating. His Arabic response was ensconced in an acerbic –if not venerable- Arabic aphorism: “Adoo adoowee sadeechee” (The enemy of my enemy is my friend)!

Not satisfied with that enigmatic response, I pressed for clarification. I questioned: “Who is the enemy of your enemy?” The proprietor’s response was unequivocal. “Mr. Bush is the enemy and Sheikh Nazrallah is the enemy of our enemy!” An abundance of caution enveloped me. I terminated my discussion with that restauranteur.

Once outside the restaurant, I posed a not unrelated question to a knowledgeable Syrian. His response was also instructive. He said: “Syrians hate Mr. Bush’s foreign policy. We do not hate Americans. I cannot say more. I cannot cross the red-line. They count my words.”

Intrigued, I pressed on. “Who counts your words?” The response was designedly oblique, but sufficiently transparent. “The Alevis count my words. More I will not say.”

To those in the know, the Alevis are the ruling coterie of seemingly secular Syrian Shiites. That sounds, seems and smells like an inexplicable contradiction. It is. But it paints a proper portrait of Syrian society and its politics.

The elite Alawite sect includes the leaders of the ruling socialist Baath party. They are abetted by affluent businessmen, industrialists and Syria’s notorious secret police, the Mukhabarat. These people run Syria. Indeed, of the 250 parliamentary seats, 170 are constitutionally reserved for the ruling Baath party and its allies. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Baath party has not lost a single election since 1963.

That said, Syria sits at the strategic crossroads of the Middle East. Syria has repeatedly been a geopolitical flashpoint and the battlefield for expanding empires. As a result, Syria has rarely ruled itself. That fact has molded the Syrian mentality. Repeated foreign invasions (by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Egyptians and Ottomans) have been a blessing and a curse to the Syrians.

Foreign rule blessed Syria with wonderful cultural diversity. But foreign rule also implanted a paranoia about Syria’s national identity. In fact, Syrians demonstrate an absence of national cohesiveness as well as demonstrable mistrust for their central government.

As a result, Syrian loyalty is fragmented. Syrian allegiances are local. Syrian fidelity and trust depend on local, ethnic and religious considerations. Given its history, an oppressed minority mentality pervades Syria’s national persona. That is illuminating.

Still, Syrians do have universal suffrage, albeit in the powerful presence of one-party rule. Additionally, it is also notable that half of Syria’s twenty-two million citizens are too young to vote. Most of these are still under age fifteen. As such, they are impressionable, malleable and unpredictable.

Of equal import, Syria is not monolithic. While it is a country whose citizens are overwhelmingly Arab (90%), Syria also encompasses substantial non-Arab groups, notably Kurds and Armenians. Additionally, while about 70% of Syrians are Sunni Moslems, there are also Shiite Moslems (13%), Orthodox Christians (10%), Alevis (6%) and Druze (1%). There also are strong Greek, Armenian and Syrian Orthodox churches.

Perhaps unexpectedly, freedom of religion does exist in Syria. Contrast that with Saudi Arabia where the public practice of any religion except Islam is not only strictly forbidden, but where apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Even more significantly regarding religion in Syria, a 1950 plebiscite officially rejected Islam as the national religion. That policy still stands. That is a matter of no little consequence in a region suffused with Islamic
militancy. This lends greater import to the fact that Syria still bans The Muslim Brotherhood.

Interestingly, Syria’s existence as a staunchly socialist, secularized, Arab nation should –but does not- fly in the face of Iran’s non-Arab, Shiite/Islamic theocracy. Somehow that reality goes unnoticed. But the very existence of a nominally secular Syrian state ruled by apostate Alevis is absolutely anathema to Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalist Sunni monarchy. As such, the blatant animosity of Saudi royalty for the Syrian Alevis (and Syrian Shiites) is yet another –often unrecognized - fly in the geopolitical ointment that greases the region.

These are not bland differences without bold distinctions. This is dramatic reality. This is a region where the fourteen-century old animosity between Sunnis and Shiites is palpable. As one Mideast expert opined, anyone who thinks that there can be détente between the Sunnis and Shiites displays an “arrogant ignorance of Islam.”

That said, Syria’s constitution requires its President to be a Moslem. Yet President Bashir al-Assad is an Alevi, a secularized, secret and somewhat Christianized sect. Alevi ties to Shiite Islam are tenuous, at best. As a result, an arrangement with a prominent Shiite cleric produced a fatwa (Moslem religious edict) proclaiming that Alevis are still Shiites. Thus, Bashir Al-Asad’s presidency technically complies with the mandate of the Syrian constitution.

The Syrian government says that the Alevis constitute 10-16% of Syria’s population. Street demographers in Damascus’ alleyways beg to differ. They protest that the Alevis constitute only three per cent of the population. The truth lies in between. But, percentages aside, the tension between the ruling Alevis and the residue of effectively disenfranchised Syrian citizens seems clear.

The bottom line is that the Syrian government is a roguish entity
suffused with unsavory predilections and distasteful predispositions. The
Syrian government officially restricts public meetings, censors the media,
controls transportation, hosts terrorist organization offices (Hamas; Hezbollah; Islamic Jihad; Kurdish rebel groups), sponsors state terrorism and remains in cahoots with Iran in suspect endeavors.

In the midst of all this, Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper prominently asserted: “…it is preferable to have Bashir Assad sitting in Damascus rather than the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Of course, it is crystal clear that the Assad government harbors a decided lack of love for the West. At the same time, most Syrians have precious little more than an expedient affection for Iran, Syria’s political paramour. To the extent that Iran is Syria’s friend, it is because Iran not only supplies political, economic and military support, but also because Iran is the enemy of Syria’s enemy, the Great Satan of the West.

In fact, it may not be inappropriate for Western diplomats to explore precisely what it takes to turn an enemy into a friend. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Western foreign policy makers should take instruction from an old Syrian proverb. It affirms: “Every knot has someone who can undo it” (i.e. every problem has a solution). At the very least, that seems worth talking about. But will Bashir al-Assad ever talk turkey?

Turkey? Isn’t that where Syrian dissidents and defectors find sanctuary?