USCFL - Middle Eastern Terrorism after Assad: Hope for a Change

For three decades Hafez el-Assad was a fierce enemy of not only Israel but of all who stood in his way towards the creation of Greater Syria and the role he envisioned for himself in the Arab world. Terror inside and terrorism abroad were justifiable tools in his quest for dominance.

Assad was the architect of the war of attrition on the water issue and the main supporter of the Palestinian terrorism that led to the Six-Day War and the Arab defeat. He was responsible for the death of thousands of Christians in Lebanon; the assassination of the Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt and the Christian leader Bashir Gemayel, which wiped out any meaningful resistance of the Lebanese leadership to Syrian control; the massacre and expulsion of thousands of Palestinians and their leader Arafat from northern Lebanon; and even the killing of scores of Hizballah fighters who tried to limit Syrian control of their neighborhood in Beirut. The fact that over 20,000 thousand Syrian Muslim Brothers were killed by his artillery in the city of Hamah can well testify as to Assad's ruthlessness.

All, without exception, of the Palestinian groups and organizations opposed to Arafat and the peace process have headquarters in Syria and bases in areas under Syrian control in Lebanon.

Assad has for years used terrorism too in his strategy to pressure Turkey to accede to his claims for more water from his neighbor country. The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) has been the tool for obtaining this goal, turning southeast Turkey into one of the deadliest arenas for terrorist and guerrilla attacks.

Assad's Legacy

Although Iran is commonly considered the main sponsor of Middle Eastern terrorism in the 80s and 90s and the staunchest enemy of the peace process between Arabs and Israel, it could not play such a role without the active and passive support of Assad. The grooming of the Hizballah as a terrorist organization, the establishment of the Revolutionary Guards' training camps in the Beqa' Valley, the murderous attacks on the US embassy, US Marines and French peace-keeping forces in Beirut, and more recently the massive weapons supply to the Hizballah through Syrian territory testify to the pivotal role Syria has played in Iranian sponsorship of international terrorism. Not long ago Mustafa Tlass, the Syrian defense minister - who recently assured Bashar al-Assad of the army's allegiance to his rule - admitted that he personally gave the green light to "The Resistance" to bomb the American and French troops in Beirut in 1983.

Hizballah considers itself - and is seen in the Arab world, as well as in Israel - as the big winner in the fight against the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon, an example for the future behavior of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel. But any objective observer could assess that Israel was compelled to withdraw, not by 400 - 500 Hizballah guerrillas - no real match for the IDF. Rather the withdrawal came about because of the trepidation of Israeli political leaders to tackle the real culprit: the Assad regime and its army, which granted Hizballah practical immunity and vital strategic depth.

Before Assad's death most observers and intelligence specialists estimated that he and Iran would goad Hizballah to continue the guerrilla and terrorist war of attrition against Israel's northern border, most probably with the support of, or under the cover of, disenchanted Palestinian refugees.

After Assad's death the Hizballah leaders can dream of a more independent status and a predominant role in the Lebanese and Middle Eastern arena. It is perhaps significant that Hizballah's Secretary-General Nasrallah was among the first leaders to be received by the mourning Bashar. His delegation was received with honors at the funeral and his troops were the only foreign ones permitted to mourn Assad's death by marching in the city of Latakye.

What now?

Will Bashar al-Assad and the military pillars of his regime continue the strategy indicated by the father, as they solemnly promised during the first days of mourning? Will Bashar continue to use terrorism as a strategic weapon in order to show that he is not betraying his father's legacy, that he is as ruthless and as formidable to his enemies as his father is?

The real legacy left by President Assad should not be forgotten. The real stake is not the stability of Bashar's regime but the eradication of terrorism as a legitimate weapon in Middle Eastern politics. To contribute to the stability of a regime "a la Hafez al-Assad" means to continue the oppression of the Syrian people and to perpetuate the instability of the Middle East. Would it be acceptable today to strive for the stability of the Khamene'i regime in Iran rather than Khatami's reforms and the liberalization of the Iranian people?

The absence from the funeral of most of the world's political leaders, including president Putin of Russia, should be a sign to the young Assad that a new era is dawning, and that what was tolerated for years by the international community cannot continue. There are steps that Bashar el-Assad can take to adjust to this new era:

First, Hizballah's prevalence and radicalism in the Lebanese internal power balance, with all its negative influence on the other communities and on the peace process, should be curtailed, by disarming without delay the only active militia left in the country. Otherwise we will see the territory now under Hizballah control in Southern Lebanon - what Israeli commentator Ehud Ya'ari calls "Hizballahstan" - become a new base for Jihad, both in Palestine and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East.

Second, Lebanon and Syria should be influenced to put an end to the Iranian military presence in the Beqa' Valley. The Revolutionary Guards are not only the supporters of the Hizballah. They are also the agents of the hard-line circles of the Iranian regime, who may use their the Hizballah to sabotage president Khatemi's cautious steps of rapprochement to the U.S., the West and the peace process through terrorist provocations.

Finally, the new leadership in Syria should be made to understand, through the statements and actions of Israeli and world leaders that its full acceptance in the new Middle East is not without price. If Syria aspires to stabilize the regime, to improve its economy, to enhance its relations with the outside world - and if it genuinely intends to resume the peace talks - it must abandon once and for all the use of terrorism in advancing its strategic and political goals.

Ely Karmon is a Senior Research Scholar and Director of the Internet Project of The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism at The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel.

Would you like to comment on this article?

If you would like to send us your thoughts on this article, please click the button below:

If you would like to read feedback submitted by other visitors, please click on the button below:

Article:	Middle Eastern Terrorism after Assad: Hope for a Change
Author:	Dr. Ely Karmon
Date:	June 2000