Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What if Assad were overthrown?

What if Assad were overthrown?

How would the Tehran, Moscow, and the West respond to a post-Assad Syria?

“Getting rid of Assad” often comes up as a throw away line in political discourse, particularly during Republican presidential debates.

Overthrowing or replacing Bashar al Assad would be easy enough, the U.S. has deposed and replaced plenty of tyrants in its day, but seldom does anyone discuss what would happen in this fictions scenario after Assad gets the boot.

Danielle Pletka, Senior Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at AEI explains:

Part 1:

Explore the five groups that could have Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in their crosshairs.

Part 2:

As talks involving the regime of Bashar al-Assad and key elements of the Syrian opposition face continued delay in Geneva this week, the world must contemplate a world in which the dictator is no longer in power. How would the Tehran, Moscow, and the West respond to a post-Assad Syria?

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Henry Hawkins | January 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

“How would the Tehran, Moscow, and the West respond to a post-Assad Syria?”

Well, Putin would first tell Obama and Kerry to go sit over there at the kiddie table while the adults figured things out.

Tehran and Moscow will run the post-Assad Syria. Obama, as Leader of the Free World, has fully abdicated that position of power.

Isn’t it a remarkably arrogant assumption to presume Syria will remain a going concern once Assad is gone?

Also, what is the point of deposing Assad? The point is to liquidate the Alawite sect’s hold on power, including the army, chemical weapons, finances, industry, and public services. Deposing Assad, himself, was never a significant issue from the beginning. Once that process is accomplished through not-so-creative destruction, what’s left for Tehran, Moscow, etc, to negotiate with?

What a painfully juvenile and inept analysis by the AEI.

First and foremost the Syrian regime and ISIS do not have many battles because they share very few fronts with ISIS, compared to all the other groups. Its not some sinister conspiracy between ISIS and Assad, it just the reality on the ground. Neither side has limitless resources, so the regime is going to fight for important strategic gains, not rush out into the middle of eastern Syria to try to hold huge tracts of sand with no way to defend it, while Aleppo and Damascus are a furnace of conflict.

Secondly, there was no mention of the word ISLAM. You cannot come up with any strategy against ISIS, Al Qaeda, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc., until policy makera and the elite start to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla with the Koran in his lap.

Until we have someone better than ISIS, why would we want to replace Asad?

    forksdad in reply to Skeptic62. | January 27, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    Why assume there is anyone better than Assad? You can’t believe anything the opposition says. Hell you cannot even believe who they are half the time. Amina anyone?

    Our meddling has only made the situation worse and now is spreading chaos through Europe and the United States. Cut the line and let this one go. There’s no win for America.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Skeptic62. | January 27, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    By ‘we’ I’m assuming you mean the west. Thanks to Obama, the west won’t be involved in it. Tehran and Moscow will install somebody palatable to their goals if/when Assad has to go.

They can have Hillary if they want. It is starting to look like she might have time on her hands if Bernie takes her out in the primaries. Joined with ISIS, she could release her inner despot.

Are we prepared to stand our ground, with friends and allies, this time?

If not, then we can expect the status quo, including: domestic chaos, Terrorism 2.0, a progressive refugee crisis, displacement of native people, increased “planning” efforts, and, in fact, a global humanitarian disaster.

Also, what nation did Assad invade, or are we just being proactive? Is this more social justice activism or meddling a la the disastrous “Arab Spring”?

Freddie Sykes | January 27, 2016 at 4:24 pm

The cheapest way is for Assad to resign and go into exile… but why would he do that after what happened with Pinochet.

I’m sure that the success we saw obongo have in post-Gaddafi Libya is going to be the template for Syria–so he’d better go find some ragtag filmmaker to take into custody and jail for a year!

“…. but seldom does anyone discuss what would happen in this fictions scenario after Assad gets the boot.”

THANK YOU!!!

I’ve been talking about this for decades. The very first question one MUST always consider before seeking regime change is “what will the new government be, and who will lead it?”

This is what got us into trouble in Iraq. Could have sent only 30,000 troops to depose Saddam. Took a half million to attempt to stabilize the country after he was deposed. Our government seems to have thought it would be like liberating Paris. Everyone gets laid and then goes home. Doesn’t work like that in countries that have never been civilized. Particularly not countries comprised of factions that hate each other to the point of open warfare.

Look what happened in Egypt when Obama helped overthrow Mubarak. Muslim Brotherhood terrorists took power. Then, nearly a civil war, barely averted.

Hillary, on Sydney Blumenthal’s recommendation, decided to overthrow Khaddafi without a single thought as to what would happen next. Now, ISIS controls some cities, Al Qaeda controls entire regions, and rival tribal warlords are fighting for the rest.

In Syria, if Assad goes down now (as opposed to within the first 3-6 months of the rebellion against him), the only likely successors are ISIS and Al Qaeda. That’s it. The “moderates” are a pathetic joke, what’s left of them – most have already defected (with US taxpayer provided equipment) to to terror organizations.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend