I am not denying I may be an idiot know-nothing, I am however contributing my $.02 to the thread.
What I’ve read so far…
Assad has the backing of Russia and Iran. He was the conduit that supplied Hezbollah in Lebanon, so they are returning the favour by jumping into the mix now on his side. They also don’t want to lose their supply lines.
Assad and the ruling class are Alawite, which, I understand is a sub-sect of Shiite. Iran is Shiite, Hezbollah is Shiite(?). The Alawites and other shiites are a minority in Syria, but like Saddam in Iraq (he was Sunni in a majority Shiite country), the minority is the ruling class. There are also a few local Christians and then there are others whose financial interests outweigh ethnic or religious issues.
The majority are Sunni - same as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the gulf states, and of course, al Qeda. (Osama bin Laden was Saudi, remember?) As a result, they get some support from the Saudis and others. Obviously, the fanatic Sunni groups (aka al Qeda wannabees) are the most effective at getting support and the most effective and least bothered by their consciences at inducing others to support their cause - even if it means fighting fellow rebels.
Meanwhile, in the northeast corner where Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq are close together, that general area is Kurdish. The Kurds have been fighting for an independent homeland for decades. They’ve come closest in Iraq, where fighting against Saddam they got the support of the west, but they also fight the authorities in eastern Turkey, a NATO country (politics is complicated over there.)
According to a recent article (NY Times?) Syria is at risk of breaking up if the stalemate continues. The Assad government’s outside support and equipment may make up for his lack of wide support. Outside supplies will keep the rebels capable of holding their territory, ditto for the Kurds.
As for Israel - they have two issues - the Golan Heights and Hezbollah. Syria (or Syria Thing 1 or Thing2 ?) would like it back, but strategically, ain’t gonna happen. One or the other side would like to draw Israel by some means - stray rockets or shells, attacks, etc. Whover’s side Israel jump in to help, instantly becomes a pariah with the rest of the sides and with Arab support outside Syria; Israel knows this and limits intervention to hitting Hezbollah shipments.
Either Iran is stepping up the fun, or realizes this may be their last chance for overland shipping; but twice recently (3 times?) Israel has hit shipments allegedly headed for Hezbollah. Whether it’s gas, smart anti-aircraft missiles, or long range missiles, Israel would like to prevent fancier tech from reaching Hezbollah who would use it to menace nothern Israel from Lebanon.
The USa (and the west) has generally agreed that use of chemical weapons by Assad might(?) be a trigger for who-knows-what; probably, more supplies to the rebels. The question lately is whether the weapons have actually been used, and by whom? Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, the whole mess in Syria, with the chance of reaching into Lenbanon, is a messy mix of politics, religion, and ethnic divides. (Those Sunni-Shiite splits also tend to be along ethnic lines.) Unless one side or the other is deprived of supplies or overwhelmingly supplied, the stalemate will continue.
As for Benghazi, or Tunisia, or Egypt, Yemen, or any other Arab Spring - oddly enough, democracy is messy. Not every democracy, especially a brand new one with no democratic tradition, can be the model of sweetness and cooperation we see in Washington; nor can every democracy be the secular principled democracy we see in Washington, where God is never invoked in the name of partisan causes. As long as democracy continues, however, there is hope that things will eventually be better than they have been for 40 or 50 years since WWII under a succession of totalitarian dictatorships.
Good analysis, md2000.
I’d add that there have been a few attempts to get Israel involved - mostly potshots across the border at army patrols or bases. The IDF usually responds with a missile or tank round at the source of fire, and leaves it at that. So far, no-one has died on the Israeli side.
You obviously have never met many Pakistani politicians then.
Re the firing across the border you alluded to in a later post, is that an actual attempt to draw Israel in, or just some opportunistic aggression by local commanders? Because, I would think the last thing Assad wants right now is a confrontation with Israel, he would probably run if you offered to Golan Heights back.
But the last thing any group want is to be seen as an ally of Israel (i.e. “a tool of Israel” in anyone else’s eyes). The strategy would be to get attacked by Israel and therefore be on the side of the (Islamic) angels in everyone’s eyes, and cast his opponents as tools of the Zionist occupiers (or whatever they call them this week…)
Besides, arranging to face a foreign enemy has always been a strategy to unite any divisive political situation. It’s a bit late to pull a North Korea by now, however.
Isreal is not stupid, their government will not do anything to aid the rebels (or Assad) that would make them look like they have picked sides. They don’t want to jinx the rebels. In fact, a Syria too busy to fight outside its boundaries, and too busy mopping up the pieces for years after, would probably be a plus for them.
I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone knows.
I ponder one of the great questions of our time: Is it better for people to live in a stable dictator-led kleptocracy (I am thinking, Sadam, Gaddafi, Asad) where political activity leads to a torture chamber OR in an anarchic “state” bombed back into the stone age with health care and food distribution systems gone to the dogs where free speech reigns.
Well of course most Americans would say, without hesitation, that it is better to live in a stable democracy where free speech reigns.
They fondly imagine that this is a description of the USA.