The Jerusalem Post:
Many reading the news over the past few weeks may have given up on trying to understand what is going on. Is the fall of president Mohamed Morsi in Egypt affecting the Syrian war, and are Syrian events influencing the terrorist groups regionally? Why do the Saudis support the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, but not in Egypt? Is the Syrian war driving Sunni and Shi’ite terrorists together or apart?
There are no easy answers to these questions, because clear patterns of behavior are not constant throughout the region as states, tribes and movements look out for their interests even though at times they seem to go against their ideology or usual behavior.
While Morsi was supportive of the Sunni-dominated Syrian rebels, the new leadership headed by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi seems to be more supportive of the status quo, showing support for Syrian President Bashar Assad. Evidence of this was the restoration of diplomatic ties soon after Sisi removed Morsi from power; Morsi’s government had cut off all ties with Syria in June.
In addition, the coup in Egypt represented a regional road bump on the road to the Arab Spring (or Arab winter) and the rise of Islamists. The current end of the Brotherhood dream in Egypt gave a jolt of confidence to Assad and other regional dictators who were worried the revolutions would hit them next. The Gulf States (except Qatar) and Jordan have been concerned about revolutions in their own countries, and the fact that Sisi might have put the brakes on them comes as a great relief. For that reason, Egypt’s new government is being swamped with Gulf cash.
The Gulf exception is Qatar, which has supported the revolutions and Islamist rise in the region – particularly through its Al Jazeera channel, which holds a pro-Muslim Brotherhood line. Qatar had bet on Morsi and was upset about the coup.
Likewise, Turkey’s Islamist-led government supported its ideological partners – the Muslim Brotherhood – and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has vented his anger by blaming the Jews.
Writing in the popular Arab daily Al-Hayat on Wednesday, Elias Harfoush asked whether Assad was benefiting from the events in Egypt. He cited Assad’s boast that the coup meant the end of political Islam in the region, and the Syrian president’s belief “that the clock has gone backward” to before 2011.
In addition, he wrote, Assad received a boost from the fact that the West was clashing with the military-backed government, as the latter called on the West not to interfere in Egyptian internal affairs – a call that echoed Assad’s arguments.
Furthermore, the Brotherhood’s failure at running Egypt has hurt its regional image and “constituted an undoubted defeat for the MB in Syria,” Harfoush said.
One of the commenters said: “Assad can be easily taken out, as necessary. And it is necessary.” But why? And why would Assad decide to use Sarin weapons just when UN inspectors are in the country to investigate allegations of the use of these weapons? It can only be an unscrupulous attempt by the rebels to get outside help in their fight against Assad whose army has been winning ground for several months. The White House says that the pressure is now on Assad to prove that no chemical weapons have been deployed. A limp attempt to beat around the bush, because the pressure is actually on Obama. And there’s plenty to be said for not to intervening in the Syrian Hornet’s nest considering the barbaric executions and torture on both sides. This hasn’t been a ‘good versus bad’ scenario for some time, so whom exactly do you help?
Augustus
I think,
he was supporting the rebels, they where help using secret channels, as the BENGHASI SCANDAL,
NOW HE IS LOCKED IN, by the past failure to choose the rebels and other rebellions which turned bad,
he cannot move, he doesn’t have the support of enough of his people,
damn if he does, and damn if he don’t,
bye