A package deal on Iran and Syria?
This is where Syria comes in. It is stomach-churning for me to suggest that Americans should work to salvage any part of Assad’s regime, which has slaughtered tens of thousands of Syrians. But the least bad option available may be for all powers to pursue two overriding, interlocking goals: Syria’s descent into a total bloodbath must be stopped. And Iran must agree to live up to its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations by forswearing atomic weapons.
This does not mean protecting Assad and those close to him. They have to go. But there are generals and other officials from Assad’s Alawite minority who could credibly stay on in a transitional government. U.N. officials have identified a number of them in private contacts with the U.S., French, Russian and other governments, diplomatic sources tell me.
A Syrian coalition that provides physical and political protection for the Alawites and Syria’s other minorities, while reflecting the Sunni majority’s new power, could convince Russia and Iran that they could maintain some influence — however reduced that influence should and would be. (Paradoxically, such a coalition might also quiet Israel’s apprehensions about the strong presence of Islamic jihadists in the rebel movement and exert moderating influence on Egypt’s growing derogation of minority rights.)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What makes anyone think the Islamist jihadi will settle for anything less than an Islamic state and Shari’a law?
They have the upper hand. They are going to win eventually. And they aren’t noted for their willingness to compromise unless they are getting their a$$e$ kicked.
novaculus on December 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Bullsh!t always looks better with the “transparent transition” clause thrown in.
BL@KBIRD on December 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM
So Iran would give up the bomb in order to have Assad?
Really? That’s dangerously naive. And even if Iran did make that agreement, who’s to say they’d actually stick to it.
rbj on December 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Another piece of Journalism’s Cloud Cuckoo Land….
1) Assad goes, but the generals and colonels associated with Assad stay? Mr Hoagland does realize that these are the men who committed atrocities, right? Assad didn’t bomb Aleppo, these guys did, sure under Assad’s direction but they still bear moral culpability. Which yields:
a) What makes Hoagland think these morally culpable genreals and colonels would run a nicer system than Assad?
b) Makes Mr. Hoagland think the rebels, themselves would accept these morally culpable generals and colonels as anything approaching a legitimate government?
2) Why would the Islamist or other rebels end the war, IF Assad flees? It seems that would be like ending the Civil War, as long as Jefferson Davis resigns.
3) Russia and Tehran don’t think, nor does any other pragmatist/realist, that you can titrate/partition power/influence. It’s not like a divorce where you can meaningfully divvy the bank account on a 43.45:56.45% ratio. Generally speaking one has influence or one does not…and I think Tehran and Moscow realize that the amount of influence is either a whole lot or very little, and not much in-between. Assad in power and dependent on them=a whole lot. Some generals and colonels in charge=not much influence, simply because they are going to be gone, soon.
Who honestly believes this airy fluff?
JFKY on December 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Obama is just waiting for the Syrian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood to get be better organized before he gets involved.
albill on December 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM