After a year of battle between the people of Syria and the political leadership of the country, ten thousand people have been killed, a number six times that of the number of people that were killed in Libya before NATO’s intervention. One can gradually make the conclusion that Syria is most likely the toughest link in the Arab Spring serial. At this point, neither the government of Syria can totally crush its opponents nor is the opposition strong enough to force Assad to give up. Assad’s confrontation with the opposition is such that it seems to be saying: We will either agree to kill you on our choosing, or will simply slaughter you. It is absolute savagery that Assad’s supporters target children and women by sharpshooter – similar to what happened in the Bosnian war - and then butcher the survivors after capturing a region. What is even worse is that human rights activists have reported that Assad’s opponents are using the same methods against their enemies. That masses of corpses are piled in mosques for days and nobody dates take them to a graveyard out of fear demonstrates that hatred of Assad’s dynasty is deeper than something that can be healed through a compromise.
Syria’s opposition has till now not been able to emerge as a full force. Issues such as armed struggle, accepting weapons from the outside world, calling on the international community to intervene militarily and organizing channels with countries that have got involved in the Syrian crises are all issues on which the opposition groups differ and disagree.
At one point in time Syria’s Resistance Council wants to limit foreign intervention to financial assistance, delay armed resistance and keep it limited, to avoid the eruption of a civil war. On the other hand, it asks Arab states for weapons to harden its resistance, while it calls those who oppose guerilla warfare as traitors to the nation. The charter of Syria’s National Assembly also stresses that it opposes foreign intervention. The expansion of communications and the emergence of public opinion after the Arab Spring have in a sense reduced the sensitivities of tribes against each other, while democracy and democratic behavior is still a distant future for the Middle East.
Iranian governments have continuously wanted the Shiites to attain power in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria because of their security concerns and worries of Israel’s threats. The Saudis, as the guardians of the Islamic shrines and the owners of the largest oil reserves in the world, are moving precisely opposite Iran’s actions through this security-minded perspective. The actions of the Syrian people are not softening the security minded perspective.
Even though the Iranian regime has passed on its experience of brutal street management to Syria and has been sending specialists to train the Assad regime in its efforts to overpower its opposition and demonstrators, one cannot dismiss the impact that the Saudi-Iranian rivalry has on the fate of Syria.
The Syrian government never wholeheartedly attempted to resolve the differences in the country with the goal of uniting its people. It did make every effort so that the apex of power remained of single mind, united and organized. The very same families that constituted the top leadership of political power in Syria took over all the economic levers of the country since two decades ago when economic reforms and free markets were launched. Over time, class differences emerged and joined the tribal, dynastic and religious divisions that the Alawis had with the population. The rise of billionaire tycoons such as Dhu al-Himma Shalish, the Najibs, the al-Hassans, the Hamshus, the Hambubas, the Showkats and certainly Rami Makhluf Bashar Assad’s infamous first cousin have played a key role in creating this class rift in the country. The New York Times even labeled Makluf as president Assad’s financier. He uses his influence to manipulate the country judiciary and security apparatus to instill fear and terrorize his opponents.
The Syrian regime has thrown considerable resources and efforts to unite the rule class and has armed it with all kinds of security and oppressive instruments. So it is doubtful that the popular uprising of the Syrian people will heed results in the near future. The country could plunge into a full-fledged bloody civil war in which the Saudi-Iranian rivalry for influence would destroy whatever security the people of the country have. But no matter what how events unfold, one thing is certain: conditions in Iran will not revert back to what they were prior to 2009, just as Bashar Assad will not succeed in taking the country back to the conditions that existed before the Arab Spring.
