Israel: We prefer Assad (in comments to the US) (JTA)

[Wordie]

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=270

Israel: We prefer Assad

Israel told the United States it fears the outcome of regime change in Syria.

At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.

U.S. officials told their Israeli counterparts that toppling Assad could be “transformative” and dismissed concerns about an Islamist regime taking his place. Israel and the United States favor pressure on Syria to force it to stop hosting Palestinian terrorist groups and supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization,

Comments from Josh Marshall:

I guess since we've never overthrown a secular Arab strongman only to have the whole thing blow up in our face, it's just hard to know whether the Israelis' concerns might be well grounded.

-- Josh Marshal
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=270

[Chicago Democrat]

1. Translation: 'please don't fuck up Syria like you did Iraq!'

CAN I PLEASE MOVE TO ISREAL OR LEBANON, a nice safe country with no active immoral wars?

[madmark]

2. Well Israel, now that you got our neo-cons to acquire a taste for regime

change and "transformation", you think you can put the genie back in the bottle?

[Vidar]

3. But what would Israel know about the Mideast that Bush doesn't?

[PurityOfEssence]

4. The PNAC wants to crush opposition to Israel, and Israel doesn't want it.

Well la-di-da, this must be quite a hit for the would-be world conquerers. They were counting on the IDF helping them overrun Syria, and here the locals don't even want to be helped.

Isn't that interesting?

Troublesome as Israel is, its leaders are very practical, and stirring up discord isn't helpful.

What do Perle, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Feith and the usual band of scoundrels have to say about all this? Quite a spanner in the works, isn't it?

Israel isn't the problem; those who think they act in Israel's interests are the problem.

[Wordie]

9. It would be very interesting to hear what those guys think about this. eom

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Very good.

Israel isn't the problem; those who think they act in Israel's interests are the problem.

And, one could also say. equally correctly, that the Palestinians are not the problem, either; only those who think they act in Palestinians' interests are the problem.

[entanglement]

13. Excellent post

..."Israel isn't the problem; those who think they act in Israel's interests are the problem"

Should be read by all those people who want to be more Israeli than the Israelis;

[No Exit]

5. Oh, great... then someone went and assassinated Hariri for NOTHIN'

[bemildred]

6. Always nice to see a bit of sanity. nt

[Wordie]

8. Oh yes, it certainly is.

I still am surprised by these unexpected comments; I'm mulling over whether there may be even more to this, as earthshattering as it seems to be. Whatever the reasons for the comments, this is a good thing.

[bemildred]

11. Well, it's new.

Previous dialog from the Israeli gov't propaganda organs has been hostile to Syria and very hostile to Assad. So it's reasonable to infer that some reassesment is being done in the light of current events.

[AntiFascist]

14. Sharon is no longer a Likudist? nt

[cantstandbush]

7. You can rest assured that Syria is safe from US now. n/t

[MADem]

10. Hafez's little boy is rather different from his daddy

By all accounts, he is a rather gentle, well-educated, and thoughtful guy. He was an eye doctor for years before he got into this game, after the death of his old man...

[Theduckno2]

15. Recently read a relevant posting at TomDispatch.

In it Tom Engelhardt discusses a new book by Robert Dreyfuss; The Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam.

Given the content of the posting, I cannot imagine Israeli leaders not being skeptical of regime change in Syria.

For those that are interested:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=39971

Edit - spelling

[allemand]

16. Israel, US disagree on post-Assad Syria

By NATHAN GUTTMAN
WASHINGTON

Israel and the US are at odds over the future of Syria in a post-Bashar Assad era, The Jerusalem Post has learned. (...)

The Israelis projected three possible scenarios if the current regime does fall - all of them dangerous for the stability of the region.

The first was the possibility that Syria would deteriorate into total chaos and plunge into some sort of civil war; the second was that Assad would be succeeded by another member of the ruling Alawite sect who would be a hardliner like Assad; or, third, that an extreme Islamic regime would take over the country.

Sources briefed on the content of the talks said these Israeli warnings stood in stark contrast to the American view as it was presented in the dialogue. The Americans said they believed that, after Assad, Syria would go through an evolutionary process similar to the one Lebanon has experienced in the past year, and would transform into a free political society.

More:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475675097&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Israel fears a destabilized Syria
(...)

But according to people familiar with the outcome of the talks, some Israelis have come to believe that the Bush administration is becoming increasingly convinced that regime change in Syria is needed or even inevitable.

Considering the situation in Iraq, no one is talking seriously about a military option in regard to Damascus, but some think the Assad administration is weak enough to be uprooted by applying more economic and diplomatic pressure. Heavy pressure is expected when the final Mehlis report is to be published next month. The final report is expected to come closer to point at officials in Assad's inner circle as responsible to the assassination of Hariri.

More:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=653090&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

[Spinzonner]

17. How many dead US Soldiers and Syrian civilians

in a 'needed' regime change ?

[Andromeda]

21. Judging from the Bush administration's...

judgement so far, Israel should be concerned about what the US plans to do.

Creating instability in the Middle East is what George W. does the best.

[mia]

18. Is the Mosul-Haifa pipeline pipline project still in the works?

So what is good good for Israel is good for the US, but not necessarily the other way around.


Here's an earlier article about the pipeline. I read somewhere else that the US has built military bases along the route of the pipeline.
Is this true?


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak01.html


Iraqi consent will be out of the question as long as the current regime of Saddam Hussein is in power. As acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime, if ever it comes to power, will still require Syria's consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the overall political environment in the Middle East and Israel's continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights, the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with Israel's mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline. Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked the flow of Iraqi oil.

Hence, unless the pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with Israel, the pipeline project will require a different regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic about a regime change in Syria in the near future.

[Wordie]

19. Aah, now I understand those who say "It's all about the oil." eom

[rfkrfk]

20. this is crap, don't believe everything you read ...

I can't read someone else's mind, so I
don't know what somebody else wants,
but I don't necessarily believe everything they say.

[Wordie]

22. Well, it's what the Israelis themselves said, per the JTA article.

<snip>At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.<snip>

Are you saying they didn't say it, or are you saying they weren't being honest when they did, or are you questioning the source? It isn't really clear from your comments. Can you explain?