Egypt in Reverse and Middle East disintegration

In Egypt over the last few weeks there have begun prosecutions and detentions of individuals who have not had anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, but have been rounded up arbitrarily.  The military and police intelligence units have been picking up many people suspected of dissent, even if unrelated to the Brotherhood.

Even Mohamed el Baradei is under investigation for his resignation from the government to protest police violence because “there has been a citizen complaint.”  (Do not worry; he has left the country.)  Over the last thirty or forty years, Egypt has become a security state, infiltrated by countless informers, and the military and police have been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood the entire time.

The democracy with which Egypt has been flirting is not American democracy.  The state of emergency which has been in force the last few weeks is closer to the normal state of affairs  for a country that has been more familiar with a police state than with democracy.

There are indications that the entire Middle East is being destabilized.  The big news last week was a sarin gas attack, blamed on the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad.  The UN was finally given access to the site after five days, and has collected samples from patients.  The three local hospitals most involved reported 3,600 patients and 350 deaths, but some say over a thousand have died.

The news that most people don’t know is that there are over a million Syrians who have left their homes.  Many are in Lebanon and Jordan.  Many more are in Turkey, whose government actively supports those who are rebelling against Assad.  The destabilizing effect of the civil war in Syria cannot be overemphasized; take, for example, the entry of Hezbollah on the side of the Assad government at the same time that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees are in Lebanon.

Take also, for example, the quiet support of Israel for the Syrian rebels at the same time that al-Nusra, a sworn advocate of al-Qaeda, forms one of the most successful rebel battle groups.  Apparently, Hezbollah is worse in Israeli eyes than al-Qaeda.  Iran, which backs Hezbollah, is Israel’s worst enemy at present, with Iran’s not-so-subtle threat of building a nuclear explosive device and Israel’s none-too-subtle threat of pre-emptive strikes.

Iraq is forming another destabilizing agency now, with Shia acolytes in charge of the government and flights carrying arms for Assad crossing its southern borders.  The frequency of anti-personnel bombs, suicide and otherwise, is a measure of the basic instability of Iraq.

The autocracies and/or oligocracies of the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar, are threatened with overthrow by democratic and theocratic rebellion.  The states that have evolved, like Iran and Iraq, are suffering popular unrest just the same.

In Iran, in 2009, there were popular demonstrations against a fraudulent  presidential election that reached critical proportions but were put down by the government’s security forces.  This period has practically been forgotten in the face of Iran’s current economic problems, caused by the American-led “sanctions” for non-cooperation in nuclear negotiations.  Iran’s government is reeling from these economic blows, while at the same time afraid of its own people, who could rise again at any time.

Another factor unknown to most Americans is that the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad is heavily defended by Soviet arms, land, sea, and air.  The Russians have recently supplied the most advanced air-defense radars and missiles.  The Syrian navy is well supplied with anti-ship missiles that are deadly against ships as big as aircraft carriers.  Assad’s cavalry is also deep in Soviet-era tanks.  Syria’s defenses make, for example, establishment of a no-fly zone, very costly to accomplish.

The Western attack is likely to come in the form of cruise missiles, which are plentiful and cheap to use.  Guided missile destroyers are stationed with Western naval forces well within range of Syrian government assets.  In my humble opinion, a really large strike would be the best one.  Cruise missiles are not all that impressive by themselves, but when sent in large flocks they do have an effect.

Whether striking Assad’s Syria would further destabilize the Middle East is an open question.  The Administration, and most of our Western allies, feel that punishment for the use of chemical weapons is more important than considering future stability.  My personal opinion is that we should attack Assad with every cruise missile and drone warplane in our inventory, then stand off and wait for the people of Syria to return to their country.  Quantities of food aid and money might also be useful.

The advantage of my “plan” is that we don’t have to arm the rebels if we wipe Assad out with cruise missiles.  It would dramatically shorten the war and demonstrate to other oppressive regimes that they shouldn’t go too far.  The disadvantage?  A lot of casualties, mostly military but some civilian.  Possible release of sarin gas from breaches of containment.   Definite Russian hostility and possible retaliation.

So, it’s likely that any “punishment” of Assad for using sarin on his own people will be limited to a size not likely to provoke Russian retaliation.  Doesn’t that seem unfortunate when you’d rather see a big bang?