Why Is the World not Acting in Syria

The news from Syria hasn’t changed. There are almost 100 deaths each day. The al-Assad regime continues to deny that it is committing any of these atrocities. The international community wrings its hands and wonders what to do. The United Nations tries to deal with Russian and China. The Arab League discusses sending its monitors back into Syria.

All this hasn’t changed for many months now, except that the daily death toll continues to rises.

It is impossible not to think of Libya - or Egypt - or Yemen - or Bahrain. Why was it relatively easy to so something to advance the cause of freedom in these countries while in Syria it seems difficult in the extreme?

Finally, I think we are looking at the wrong facts. It is not the atrocities or the monitors or the UN resolution stalemate that is the question.

It is the al-Assad regime.

What we have not heard for several months now is the discussion, almost whispered, about what would replace the regime if it were defeated and ousted. I believe this is the question that prevents real action, real opposition to Bashar al-Assad.

Yemen is under the wing of the United States and it will stay there, no matter who is in government. Bahrain is protected by Saudi Arabia and it will continue to be protected. Egypt is inching toward a representative government and, in any case, it is not the kind of state where terrorists would take over quickly without instant civilian protest and disruption. And, we know what happened in Libya, where the UN and the West and Qatar decided that enough was enough of Qadhafi’s murderous regime and acted.

What do the above cases have in common? They are not strategic in the same sense that Syria is. One could argue that Egypt fits the bill, but Egypt is an old and relatively stable country where the people have from time to time found their voice in favor of getting rid of autocrats. We are watching this unfold now.

But, Syria is different. It is a country deeply divided along tribal lines in a location - with a military, weapons and Russian and Iranian protectors - where it can cause damage that would be hard to counter without starting a generalized war in the Middle East, disrupting petroleum supplies, forcing Iran to flex its muscle as a burgeoning regional power, and forcing most regional states to take sides.

It would also leave Israel exposed as it has not been since 1949. The likelihood is that Syria would lash out at Israel if attacked by a UN-led coalition. It would demand help from Iran and Russia. It would cause trouble on a massive scale that would require response…from the UN, from the US, from Europe.

I believe this is the reason for all the talk and no action. No one wants to unleash a chain of events that it would be next to impossible to control. And no one wants to see the Middle East go up in flames. And, certainly, America does not want to see Israel attacked and weakened.

Until the world figures out who can replace al-Assad without sparking these unhealthy reactions, it seems to me that the citizens of Syria will go on suffering until al-Assad is convinced that he has put down the uprising and can go back to brokering power in the Middle East without interference from dissidents.

That is not a pretty picture, but it may be absolutely true.