Who's in charge? How Assad & Syria control the greatest stake in the Middle East

The facts speak for themselves.  If you look at the numbers above, Syria is a global embarrassment into how a country should be allowed to operate.  The tyranny and brutal justice of Bashar Assad are on clear display for the world to see.  

16, 321 killed in 451 days.  (1,226 children, 1,150 women)

65,000 others missing.

212,000 detained.

1,000,000 internally displaced.

200,000 refugees.

1.4 million at risk of famine.

And what is Bashar Assad doing to fix this?  Nothing.  He is too concerned with hanging onto power that he simply does not have.  His ability to govern is nonexistent, and his will to govern has been diverted into handling an uprising that he can not handle without sheer force.

The real question now is how long must we allow this movement to go on without our President, Secretary of State, ambassadors in the region, even uttering a word to honor those who have lost their lives trying to bring a change that this administration welcomed gladly in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt even.  The pressure quickly mounted when the U.S. withdrew any support for longtime regional partner Hosni Mubarak, yet an Iranian puppet like Assad does not even gain mention in a White House press briefing.  

This President knows what is at stake if Assad falls.  It may not be pretty, but it is worth a chance to support this potential change.  Without Assad, a TRULY free Lebanon could emerge - dismembering the results of the 2008 civil war which installed a Hezbollah-led Parliament and President - and bring a legitimate government unifying all religions and sects.  A new Lebanon without Hezbollah (which is suffering internal dissent over finance mismanagement and its leadership) and a new Syria led by the people and not governed by an heir to the throne, will change the region.  Iran's largest proxies will have been diminished, no longer giving terror groups like Hezbollah the authority they once held (Hezbollah controlled many social services in the country, generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue for the group capitalizing on everything from garbage collecting to electricity, which sparked the 2008 civil way when the Lebanese government attempted to shut off the group's secure telecommunication network, which was declared an act of war by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah). 

 All of this means that in order to sustain its ability to defend itself using its proxy network, Iran's estimated $200 million annually given to terror groups may have to increase...and its terror networks regroup.  Safe havens once held in Lebanon will now be free societies, capable of challenging Iranian meddling.  This is exactly what is needed to counter Hezbollah, which many terror experts have labeled for almost a decade as terrorism's "A-team", leading Al-Qaida in expertise.  

Why then have we allowed the people of Lebanon and Syria, approximately 25 million, to be denied an opportunity to create a new future for the youths?  Why must they have to wait another day?  How come we have outsourced any responsibility as a global leader to help resolve the problem to Russia, who has a longstanding partnership with Iran and Syria in military contracts that are probably being used in the daily bloodbaths on the streets of Homs?  Not to sound cynical, but Vladimir Putin knows probably better than anyone else how much money his country has to gain from arming Bashar Assad with Russian arms and military systems, why would he give the bat of an eye to the numbers inside Syria?  

This situation can not and will not be resolved inside the United Nations.  Rather it will be met, similar in World War II, by the dedication and partnership of freedom loving countries who challenge a power hungry menace and protect those who can not protect themselves.  The time to stop this madness is overdue, but it is clear that Assad has enough backing to hold onto whatever power he still yields, which is only through killing any dissenters.

Committing to a resolution for Iran

2011 has been a whirlwind year, with the emergence of the "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East and the recent death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, this is hardly a time for the U.S. to mull presidential candidates with little to no foreign policy backbone. While TIME magazine recognized "the Protester" as its person of the year, it clearly showed how strong an impact one person can have - for better or worse. Now as Syrian protesters continue to be massacred on the streets, the U.S. stays mum to the violence committed by President Bashar Assad. Whatever happens in Syria could be part of a larger trail that could ultimately lead to Iran, resulting in either a stronger Islamic republic under Khomenei or a new democracy. Now, more than ever is the time to act in Iran and to sustain all current actions.

To the West and especially Israel, the largest concern from Iran has been with the undeclared and unregulated nuclear pursuits of a country that seeks to control the region and the world. This is a country that is bigger than its borders, exploiting partnerships in various regions to expand and establish presence inside virtually every corner of the globe. For the time being, Iran's activities have been primarily centered around fundraising. However, recent reports show that the U.S. has effectively diminished the flow of funds from Iran to groups like Hizbollah by as much as 25%. Continued sanctions can help manage the world's largest exporter of terrorism, but it does little to end the threat posed by Iran's proxies. Furthermore, the apparent drying up of money has reportedly pushed Hizbollah operatives in Northern Lebanon to deal drugs in an attempt to make up for losses.

Strategically, now is perhaps one of the most opportune times for the U.S. to capitalize on the revolutionary movements emerging throughout the region as well as the insecurity of Iran's government. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will not run in the election in 2013, and the sanctions have proven disruptive to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and its funding of Hizbollah, which is reportedly in turmoil amid reports of internal corruption which reportedly had the group's investment manager having embezzled as much as $1.6 billion. That is how much money we are talking about. Consider Western intelligence having placed Hizbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah to have a net worth of $250 million.

According to reports, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is growing increasingly frustrated with Hizbollah amid the corruption allegations. Hizbollah, regarded as "the A-team of terror" amid intelligence circles, has taken a serious hit and may be at a bypass with many of its senior leaders and the IRGC. With the tension between Iran and Hizbullah building, and an inability to deliver funds, Iran's biggest and most feared proxy is in a weakened state. Combined with upcoming elections in 2013 and the growing movement inside Syria, Iran's biggest assets are in a struggle that they can either emerge stronger or weakened.

Last week, Ahmadinejad announced that by 2013 his country will be a major gasoline exporter. This move is a direct affront to the threat and usage of sanctions in an effort for his country to establish independence similar to its establishment of a joint bank venture with Venezuela.

Opportunity exists for the U.S. to partner with Western countries and regional players in seeking a new Iran that eliminates the violent rhetoric and apocalyptic direction that Ayatollah Khomenei seeks, regardless of who the country's president is. As Rep. Ron Paul questions why the U.S. should be meddling in Iranian affairs, the fact remains that with or without U.S. surveillance, Iran has an undeclared nuclear program, has consistently been the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, and has backed attacks globally on U.S. assets via its network of proxies.

A lose-lose situation in Libya

At the National Defense University tonight, President Obama addressed lawmakers, military commanders and the American public to support his decision to encourage the uprising in Libya. While listening, it became increasingly clear that we have learned nothing about the dangers we face when jumping into a conflict and picking sides. This is an executive decision that is merely built on the principle of overthrowing Gaddafi from power with no planning once that mission is accomplished. The simplicity of global affairs in this White House, as well as among the international community, seems to forget about the about-face made by the mujahideen we supported in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Our steadfast support for a cause has put us on a side that can, and most assuredly will, place the region and the Muslim world into a state of relentless chaos.

In 2003, it was the Bush doctrine that motivated Gaddafi's abandonment of a nuclear program which ushered in hopes for a new beginning of U.S.-Libyan relations. For the first time in nearly 40 years, it was President Obama who was the first U.S. president to meet with Gaddafi at the G8 in Italy of 2009, where Gaddafi was the African Union's representative. The picture above documented the meeting between the two leaders.

Without a doubt, when Gaddafi turned guns on protesters the international community should have been quick to act and it has successfully frozen an estimated $30 billion in Libyan assets. There are clear alternatives to force Gaddafi's hand without utilizing the U.S. military in a country where there is no apparent mission. The end goal is clear, a Libya without Gaddafi, but how that is achieved is something the international community is unwilling to support. However, with leaders like Secretary of State Clinton meeting with Libyan resistance, it appears as though we are drawing up plans like kindergartners on paper depicting our fantasies but not having any accomplishment to further this objective.

One thing remains increasingly clear, the risk of holding a maniac like Gaddafi in power are great. His history of using terrorism to retaliate in the Lockerbie bombing is deeply disturbing, and proves that if Gaddafi leaves, it is imperative to remove him from society or he will hold a vengeance.

However, despite the scenarios of where Gaddafi can go and what Libya will look like, the Obama fantasy for a new government led by ? (Who really knows?) completely turns a blind eye to all the atrocities in the region from regimes that have far worse agendas, tactics, and human rights records. Take Syria. The Assad family has held power for 45 years, and President Bashar Assad is notorious for the state he has created. However, from day one President Obama has made it a priority through backdoor channels to mediate with Syria and gradually relax U.S. sanctions and policies in hopes of enticing Bashar to a pro-Western thought. In March 2009, the story leading from the White House was that at the same G8 summit where Obama met with Gaddafi, there was a strong possibility for him to meet with President Assad.

Amongst the killings of protestors in Syria, the same egregious crimes Gaddafi ordered, the U.S. stood silent. Amidst the uprisings in Lebanon where Christians and Hezbollah battled for power, the U.S. stood on the sidelines and watched a terrorist group seize a country. As Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah utilized the Basij to quell their resistance, Obama stated that we would recognize Ahmadinejad as Iran's President. Foreign policy calls for that, a policy. This administration's aspirations put Libya in a dangerous power struggle that leads opportunity for jihadist forces to move in.

The impact of Egyptian Revolution across the Region: A Risk Assessment

As protesters continue to take to the streets of Egypt, the risk of the revolution becoming something it never intended to be increases with the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in what the White House says will "irrevocably change" Egypt. Whether that is for the better or worse nobody seems to care about, the only real issue to Pres. Obama is that Mubarak (a U.S. ally and very, very close partner in the War on Terror) seems to be out. From day one, the strategy for handling this situation has been negligent and dumbfounded at best. We were without hesitation ready to jump on board and push President Mubarak out of power, even before understanding who may succeed his reign.


Now, with the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in this "democratic revolution", we have handed one of our closest partners in the WoT seemingly over to the jihadists. Egypt is now gone, and there is no turning back. We have betrayed not only the Mubarak administration (if they somehow find a way to hold on), but the military institutions and intelligence service contacts (what else is new, we lost that with Wikigate). The level of embarassment brought on by the Obama administrations' mishandling of sensitive material, partnered with its failure to share vital intelligence that could prove useful to our allies, has weakened the United States and forced our hand into the global arena as a puppet and not a superpower.


Egypt is now the Ground Zero for Muslim revolution, it will be the tipping point for Sharia law being implemented throughout the region, and will most assuredly impact major players throughout the region like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Should the Brotherhood and ElBaradei gain control of the country, the face of the Middle East and the world will change. I do not believe the revolution has so much to do with democratic reform, rather the ousting of a president who has controlled his country for too long and aligned himself with Western influence. This is a bid by radical Islam to topple a necessary ally for the U.S., and force a transformation of Middle East policy.


The issue occurring inside Egypt boils down to one thing - Salafist Islam. Salafist Islam by definition desires to see Islam brought back to its purest roots. Doctrinally, Salafs adhere to a very strict form of Islam that seeks to integrate and praise Allah through all aspects of life. This is what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood seek to perpetuate in broad government reforms that allow violence to be a tool to implement this. Any person who does not believe is wrong to them, there is no other religion in a Salafist state. On the heels of the New Year's Eve bombing of a church in Alexandria, Christians should be alarmed about their religious freedoms. The Brotherhood will advocate, if not utilize, force to crackdown on resistance and alternate religions.


The biggest risk coming from Egypt involves the potential merger between the Salafs and Iran. If you need to see the future of Egypt, just take a look at Mohamed ElBaradei's track record. This man, the presumed post-Mubarak, Brotherhood-partnered, former IAEA director who allowed Iran's undeclared nuclear program to go unchecked under his tenure. ElBaradei will become the new Assad for the Ayatollah, making Egypt an Iranian proxy surrounding Israel and destroying the peace accord. If the Salaf Brotherhood merges with Tehran, the potential is limitless for state-sponsored terrorism to reach unprecedented levels in the region. Terrorism will cross boundaries, governments, terror groups, and it will all flow into a limitless nexus of violence.


This sharing of resources and personnel can empower groups like Hezbollah - which has an arsenal of weapons at least 5x greater than it had with its 2006 war with Israel - to renew violence against Israel and will bring in weakened countries that sat out previously (like Syria) into the mix. The real question now is where is Saudi Arabia? With King Abdullah in a weakened state after receiving back surgery, who will he lend his support to. The last thing the Sunnis want is an Iranian/Shi'a controlled Caliphate. In 2006, with the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, the Saudis provided weaponry and military assistance secretly to Israel through back channels, so as to not risk an uprising at home for giving the Zionists any support.


Egypt is too great a risk to sit idly on the sidelines and wait for a new government to emerge while we pander to the very forces we have declared war on. The Brotherhood is a violent, deceptive group that ultimately seeks to bring about the Caliphate. If we fail to act, we will lose the Middle East and empower Iran. The time to bring about democratic reform is now, but to hand over any hope of those to an organization wishing to implement shariah is far from democratic.