Mistakes Are Taking Egypt to Brink of New Dictatorship

History is apparently repeating itself in Egypt. The interim government of the Arab country has declared the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, banning all its political activities. As a result, from that date on, all protest rallies organized by that group will be considered illegal and any Egyptian citizen taking part in those rallies may be sentenced to jail terms of up to five years. Also, “execution” has been declared as the punishment of choice for accepting leadership of the group. The Egyptian government has also banned a newspaper published by the Justice and Freedom Party, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, everybody is drawing an analogy between the army-backed interim government of Egypt and the governments of King Farouk and [the country’s former dictator] Hosni Mubarak. Both those governments shed the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supporters. However, it seems that the developments in Egypt should be assessed in the light of the country’s realities. The following points may prove useful when evaluating the existing circumstances in Egypt.

Political assassination not the end of Muslim Brotherhood’s political life

First of all, it should be noted that nobody supports the efforts made to muffle the voice of a political current in Egypt. This is especially true when that current happens to be the Muslim Brotherhood which has deep roots in all areas of the Egyptian society. The Muslim Brotherhood is currently a transnational movement whose branches have been active – both overtly and covertly – in many regional countries, including Jordan, Libya, Syria, Qatar, Turkey, Yemen…. The group is about nine decades old and after the lapse of almost 14 years, it can hold its centennial birthday party. Therefore, declaring the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group and considering extensive restrictions for its political activities will not necessarily mean that this is the end of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just in the same way that the trail blazed by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was not terminated through his assassination, the current path that the Muslim Brotherhood is treading will not end through decisions made by the new government of Egypt. Therefore, the day will inevitably come when history will judge about the decision that the current rulers of Egypt have taken on the Muslim Brotherhood. This is true as during the past year, the Muslim Brotherhood only called for peaceful demonstrations and it has even sternly condemned a recent explosion in the city of Mansoura [which was used as an excuse by the interim government to ban the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood].

Muslim Brotherhood lacks influence over other political groups

It should be, however, noted that all political groups and other influential groups in Egypt did, and still are doing, their part in taking the country to where it stands right now. From this viewpoint, more attention should be paid to the role played by the Muslim Brotherhood in the past three years. Although the Muslim Brotherhood fell victim to a full-blown military coup d’état last year, it has been instrumental in the escalation of tensions by losing multiple opportunities and paving the way for the military to stage the coup d’état. Let’s not forget that before losing its political power as a result of the military coup, the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt had already lost a great deal of its influence among the Egyptian masses. During two years of their failed rule, instead of bringing all political groups under a single umbrella, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders tried to marginalize and exclude them one after the other. At last, no other political group was represented in the Muslim Brotherhood government.

During the past two years, instead of focusing on increasing the efficiency of their government, the Muslim Brotherhood included its members in all the ranks of the government from the topmost echelon all the way down to the lowermost layers. They did not even try to take necessary legal steps in this regard in order to protect themselves against possible charges and accusations. Before having the new constitution passed by the Egyptian parliament, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was beyond itself with joy at having grasped a majority at the parliament, decided to arrange for renewed parliamentary elections. After the new parliament convened, the government tasked it with drawing up the country’s new constitution. It is also noteworthy that the Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence on passing a supplement to the constitution through the Egyptian parliament was, in fact, the coup de grace to the Brotherhood government. According to the supplement, the ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, was supposed to become unrivaled ruler of Egypt. The supplement elicited vehement protests from various social strata and made the Egyptian people pour into the streets once again at the iconic Liberation Square of Cairo on the anniversary of their 2011 revolution.

Of course, this article by no means represents an attempt to ignore the role played in Egypt’s developments by political groups loyal to former Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak; those opposed to the presence of Islamist groups in power, as well as certain regional players such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Of course, it should be noted that during two years in power, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders projected such an image of themselves that it seemed as if they looked upon all democratic mechanisms as just means of securing their exclusive power. It was due to these track records that the Egyptian military officials reached the conclusion that they can easily depose the first Egyptian president who had been chosen through free elections without breaking a sweat. It was again for the same reasons that a considerable majority of the Egyptian people did not consider the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government as an end to their revolution. Therefore, the demonstrations that took place following the coup were only attended by the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. As a result of the aforementioned developments, other political groups did not reach the conclusion that a national catastrophe has taken place and did not feel any necessity to become united and this time against the country’s army as their common enemy.

Marching toward dictatorship

Despite the above facts, the political assassination of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been done through the new statement issued by the interim government, can be considered the harbinger of a new era of dictatorship in this Arab country. It is noteworthy that the Egyptian interim government has banned any form of protest rallies across the country regardless of whether they are organized by the Muslim Brotherhood or other groups. Even members of Tamarod (Rebellion) Movement, who played a critical role in the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government, have announced that the country’s new law of demonstrations is against Egypt’s constitution. On the other hand, Hizb El-Dostour (The Constitution Party) of Egypt, which was founded by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mohammad ElBaradei, has vehemently protested to the contents of the new constitution according to which civilians can stand trial at military courts. Meanwhile, Ahmed Maher, the head and one of the co-founders of the April 6 Youth Movement – a civil society movement which was opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood government – has been sent to jail after he was arrested in demonstrations held in protest to the new constitution. Therefore, it will not be illogical to assume that Egypt is in for a new era of dictatorship and despotism.

Key Words: Egypt, New Dictatorship, Muslim Brotherhood, Terrorist Group, Political Life, Political Groups, Political Assassination, Egypt’s Constitution, Eslami

Source: Khorasan Newspaper

http://www.khorasannews.com/

Translated By: Iran Review.Org

Syria vs. Mali: Similarities, Differences

Text of my commentary published by Iranian newspaper Khorasan

ENGLISH

PERSIAN

_______________________________________________

Today, the world is totally chaotic; however, current crises share same features influenced by similar or mutual factors. Investigating the similarities and differences of the crises in Syria and Mali is not only remarkable but also sheds light on vague aspects of these two crises. On January 11th, France announced that at Malian government’s request it would launch war against armed groups occupying northern part of Mali. The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, warned that the fight could go on for “decades.”

Opposition groups

The UK, the US and the European Union provide military and intelligence support to the French in their battles against armed groups in northern Mali. They fight against four major military groups which claim to attempt to establish an Islamic government, including: 1. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; 2. The Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa; 3. Ansar al-Din; and 4. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad.The first three groups follow the Salafi School of thoughts and in practice they are so-called Jihadi. These groups have occupied northern parts of Mali since almost seven months ago. These groups, except for Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, had negotiations with Mali’s central government and even neighboring countries including Algeria. These negotiations were realized through attempts of some countries including the US, the Economic Community of West African States and the United Nations. In a nutshell, the military groups involved in the Mali’s crisis: A) follow the Al-Qaeda School of thoughts; B) have occupied a region for over six months; and C) know how to negotiate and had negotiations with Mali’s central government.In Syria, the military groups fighting against the army follow Salafi School of thoughts and espouse violent so-called jihad. So far, Syrian opposition groups failed to negotiate with any countries including Syrian government. Syrian opposition groups, except for the Free Syrian Army -which is just a “name” and has nothing to do with its real identity- not only have failed to negotiate but also have refused to join the coalition called “National Revolution”, whose president is Ahmad Mouaz Al-Khatib, believing the coalition is supported by the West. Among these are Al-Nasra, Al-Tawhid Brigade and Ahrar al-Sham. Moreover, during nine months of fighting against Syrian Army, the opposition groups could not occupy a single whole city and are still continuing their terrorist bombings and attacks. Therefore, they: A) follow Al-Qaeda School of thoughts; B) could not occupy a region; and C) refuse any negotiations and do not trust the West. Thus Syrian armed groups are neither supported and authorized by people, nor are they followers of western countries which expect their interests to be served in the future of Syria.

Current governments

Last year, the current Malian government was established through a military coup by Capt. Amadou Sanogo who was trained for military operations by the US Ministry of Defense. During the last year, the US, the United Nations and other international organizations put their efforts on persuading Malian government to agree to hold an election. Malian government and some of the opposition groups had planned an election in January 2013, which was never held. During the Syrian crisis, there have been two elections held: the first one was the constitution referendum in February 2012, and the second one was parliamentary election in May 2012. In 2009, 2 years before the Syrian crisis, “Bashar Al-Assad” was voted for as the most popular Arab Leader in five Arab countries, according to a major survey of public opinion in eleven Arab countries. Assad is the only Arab president who appears with his wife among ordinary people. Before the Syrian political and military crisis, this country was an active member of the Global Community. Most of the powers in the region who are now competing to overthrow Assad used to claim friendship with Syrian government and people. Nevertheless Assad’s government and the political structure of Syria are not free of mistakes. Non-democratic and security problems in the structure and performance of the government are clearly noticeable.

Human rights and the western claim to support it

Human rights is one of the main issues that is referred to over and over in the standpoints of countries opposing Syrian government in the biased or even objective reports of international organizations and in media attacks against Syria. This is comparable with human rights conditions in Mali even after the French military operations, especially the influences of these operations on human rights. According to the reports by the US Congressional Research Center, after France’s military operations, human rights condition in Mali is totally vague and France does not care about acting in accordance with the principles of human rights. In its report on the crisis in Libya, the US Congressional Research Center also says, “The consequences of France military operations upon human rights conditions and aid groups are vague.” Without ignoring or undermining the mistakes of Syrian government in preserving national security, it is clear that France military operations in Mali do not aim at protecting human rights or people.

From reasons to motivations

What came above was a quick review on some of the similarities of the current crises in Syria and Mali and how western countries confront them differently. If we suppose that western countries interventions in Mali and their support for the government are with good intentions, then with the same reasons they should have supported Syrian government. It is clear that western countries, in their foreign policy formation, follow principles other than what they claim; principles which are not more than the law of jungle and sacrificing other countries in the interest of their owns. Today’s Zaman, a Turkish newspaper, has recently reported that France ground and air strikes in Mali are aimed at “Mali’s oil and gold.”

Let us assume that Bashar Al-Asad Steps Aside

Text of my commentary headlined: "Let us assume that Bashar Al-Asad Steps Aside" published by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 8 January.

It was translated by BBC Monitoring

You can find the main text in persian at BORDERLESS

After seven months, Bashar Assad spoke once again and expressing his sadness at Syria's current situation, he proposed a five stage plan for a way out of the current crisis. The United States has described this plan as a "meaningless effort to maintain power" and Catherine Ashton, the European Union (EU) high representative for foreign affairs, has declared that Assad's resignation is the only option for a political solution. Mursi, the Egyptian president considers him a "war criminal", and Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister has described his remarks as "empty promises." The Syrian president's opposition believes that Bashar Assad is sacrificing the peace and security of his people for his own power mongering.

Let us assume that the claim by the Western/Arab concert, with solo music being provided by Turkey, is correct and after two years of bloodshed and killing in Syria, Bashar Assad will wake up and hand over power. What must be done after Bashar Assad's dismissal? The most optimistic scenario would be for armed groups to lay down their weapons and hold a comprehensive meeting with the participation of all Syrian groups. If we take a look at the experience of the region's other countries including Libya and Egypt, the varied Syrian groups must probably achieve a "comprehensive agreement" at the end of this meeting, which would depict Syria's political future. They can put this agreement to a referendum or they can establish a transition government on the basis of this agreement, which would represent all the groups. Syria's hypothetical transition government will provide the preliminaries for parliamentary elections to be held, just like similar cases in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, and it will take on the responsibility of its organization. After the election is held, the members of parliament will appoint a committee to prepare the "draft constitution" and after the public's approval, this constitution will be the basis of the establishment of "Syria's lawful government." We thus reach the "positive end to Syria's bitter crisis" and afterward, the people of this country will live their lives happily ever after. It seems that if a roadmap is to be defined after Assad's dismissal, it will be similar to the above mentioned scenario; a scenario that will resemble the role models of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt after the fall of their former governments. However, in view of Syria's indigenous requirements, they must use the role model offered by Iraq or Lebanon as far as the division of power among Syrian groups is concerned. If such a scenario is realized in practice, Western and Arab countries must hold victory celebrations and they will share in the happiness of the Syrian people.

However, all that we have so far mentioned is almost the repetition of the same thing that Bashar Assad, the Egyptian present recommended and explained in his recent speech in the University of Damascus. So why do Western governments and Bashar Asad's regional enemies refuse to accept it? The answer is clear. They are not seeking to resolve the crisis in Syria but have instead gambled their entire political and international reputation on the overthrow of Bashar Assad. These countries are not even prepared for free elections to take place in Syria, let alone Bashar Assad being one of the prospective candidates. Through the opportunity that has been created for them as a result of the revolutions in West Asia and North africa, Assad's domestic and foreign opposition are seeking to change the Syrian regime in accordance with their own desired criteria; even at the cost of death and homelessness of millions of Syrians. It is interesting that each of them harbours a different version of "their desired Syria" in their head. The United States and European countries are looking for a country that is coordinated with the West's values and policies and is not part of the axis of resistance. Egypt and Turkey wish for a Brotherhood orientated country a nd Saudi Arabia is after a Wahhabi state. This varied and contradictory ambitiousness is one of the reasons for their failure in overthrowing the Syrian government. Maybe the people of Syria understand the point that Bashar Assad's opposition is not prepared to weigh its political chances in free elections.

Source: Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 08 Jan 13

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

Iran and the future of the Islamic Awakening

Iran paper urges for opening dialogue with various Arab political groups.

BBC Monitoring International Reports | December 29, 2012 | Copyright

Text of commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Iran and the future of the Islamic Awakening" by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 20 December.

--------------------------------------------------------

It was translated by BBC Monitoring

You can find the main text in persian at BORDERLESS

--------------------------------------------------------

These days we have entered the third year since the start of Islamic awakening in the region. During the two eventful years that we have put behind, many pairs of eyes have been focused on North Africa and the Middle East. Now that we enter the third year of this tempest, it seems that we must once again review the tools of foreign policy in this respect.

The countries of Islamic awakening in the transition period

The first issue in confronting the events and developments of Islamic awakening countries is to pay attention to the characteristics of the "transition period." In other words, the only thing that will be "fixed" with regard to these countries is "constant change." Therefore, it is better for us in Iran to be neither happy over a sympathetic breeze nor to be scared of an opposing wind. Pragmatism, the ability to show quick and calculated reactions, flexibility, and patience until results are achieved, are the requirements of Iran's foreign policy in dealing with the stormy sea of Islamic awakening.

Islamic awakening and the issue of knowledge

Many of us in Iran did not expect such events to happen in the region, and for conditions to come about so that there would be no reports of Hosni Mubarak's loyalty to Israel and Qadhafi's camels and tents. We did not expect a time when Syria would be involved in Al-Qa'ida's unending violence and for certain countries' geographical borders to be exposed to reviews. In any case, the past is past. Today, we must achieve an accurate and quick knowledge of determining characteristics in each of these countries. However, knowledge and efforts to establish relationships with influential "individuals" in these countries must not prevent us from establishing a relationship with various "groups." Being occupied with groups that have been formed during the transition period must not make us overlook "newly emerged figures" that may change the rules of the game. Forming ties with newly established parties, members of parliaments, judges, academic figures, influential businessman, and ... [as published] must be realized more than ever before, taking into account the requirements of every country. This is particularly applicable in view of the fact that today's losers in the elections of the transition period, may one day turn into the winners of the period of stability in these countries. In addition, although Islamist groups are undoubtedly the priority of Iran's foreign policy, knowledge and connection with groups that do not fit into this circle, have as much importance.

Let us respect the reality and independent identity of groups

Among the most important issues in interaction with individuals, groups, and countries that are assuming fresh identities, is respect for their independent identity. We must therefore accept that in view of the special circumstances they find themselves in, they have the right to make remarks that may not necessarily be in coordination with all aspects of Iran's foreign policy. In certain cases, we must even allow these groups to act on decisions, the wrongness of which they may come to realize in the future. It must be emphasized that in many cases they may share our views but may be limited by circumstances whereby they are unable or consider it inexpedient to reveal these issues. An examination of the intelligent behavior shown by the revolution's leader [Khamene'i] in interacting with Hamas and various Egyptian groups, can be useful in this respect.

Economy; behind the scenes of political developments

All the revolutionary groups that came to power through Islamic awakening are facing a test and a challenge of "efficiency." Western countries and the United States are now putting these tools to good use to influence the political and social trends in these countries; a trend that will become more extensive and deeper in the future. Today, the effects of the West's undue economic influence on developments in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, and Syria is evident in every single one of these countries. Therefore, we must also activate the unofficial tools of foreign policy in this respect in Iran. The private sector, which has an open hand and is free from the official restrictions that exist for the foreign policy apparatus, can play a serious role in developing Iran's ties with these countries. The idea of providing "services and training" in return for "goods", attracting Muslim tourists, and other such examples, can also help the organization of these countries after terrible revolutions and can also provide a way for Iran to counteract the West's policy of banking sanctions against Iran.

Expansion of ways of two-sided communication with the communities of Islamic awakening countries

One of the reasons for the "domino like" chain of revolutions in the region's countries, is their common language, culture, and problems. The expansion of international people based organizations, and improvements to the quality and quantity of Arab and English-speaking international media will help us eliminate the intermediary role played by Western media between the Iranian society and the Islamic awakening communities.

Looking to the future with regard to the options of joining the train of Islamic awakening

We are now in a position where we can predict future events, albeit inaccurately. Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and Sudan are countries that may join this train in the third year of Islamic awakening. Therefore, any kind of investment or policymaking on our part in these countries must be carried out by taking into account the positive or negative consequences of probable changes in these countries.

Source: Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 20 Dec 12

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

"Why Did America Support the Opposition's New Coalition?

BBC Monitoring International Reports | December 14, 2012

Text of commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Why Did America Support the Opposition's New Coalition?" published by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 13 December

Yesterday, Barack Obama, the US president personally announced that he has finally officially recognized the opposition coalition. But the acceptance of this new coalition by the United States took more than a month; a coalition that was formed in Doha by force and at the insistence of the Americans and even the arrangement of this coalition has been carried out according to the United States' taste.

US fear of Islamists in Syria

The "National Coalition for Syrian Revolution" was formed in Prague against the "Opposition National Council" some time after the unpredictable opinions expressed by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. After almost one year of communication with this council, the Americans reached the conclusion that they cannot provide the future that would be desired by Washington. The national council's weakness was lack of sufficient influence over the domestic opposition in Syria and the armed groups in particular. But in the final days of the life of this council, the United States gradually revealed that there is another reason concealed behind this decision. Their criticism of the national council was that it was too much under the influence of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Since the beginning of this crisis until the present day, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has never issued an official statement or communique under its official title or at least such statements have never appeared in the media. But this group's history shows that the foundation stone for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is armed activity; groups that hold jihadist and in certain cases even anti-Zionist beliefs. By appointing a Christian leader, the Syrian National Council tried to deny that it was under the influence of the Syrian Brotherhood but this had no result. Consequently, in its very first step, the United States completely limited the Syrian National Council, which for them was synonymous with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and over the last few days, by creating a new military council, they have marginalized the Syrian Free Army and general Riad Al-Asaad.

Efforts by the opposition coalition for adaptation to Western values

Ahmad Maaz Al-Khatib, the head of the Doha coalition, is referred to as the former group Imam of the Umavi Mosque in Damascus. However, there are two other influential individuals within the leadership structure of this coalition, who have been paid less attention. Riad Saif, Mr Al-Khatib's first deputy, is a former member of the Syrian parliament and one of the country's liberals. Mrs Suhair Atassi, his second deputy, is one of the figures active in the field of women's rights in the Middle East. These two individuals, in addition to others who are in the opposition coalition organization, constitute guarantees that the Syrian government opposition has given to its Western allies to prove their commitment to pro-Western values and policies. Yesterday, only hours after Obama's interview with ABC, and during the summit in Marakesh, Ahmad Maaz, the head of the coalition emphasized his commitment to "diversity" and at the same time condemned "excommunicating" actions. In other words, Maaz announced his adherence to his political allies and Western beliefs and his exoneration from armed extremist groups that are also opposed to the United States.

If a comparison is carried out between Egypt's current conditions and the US scenario for the transfer of power in Syria, it would appear that the Americans do not wish to be stung in the same place twice. The Syrian Brotherhood's outlook is Salafi and although the Americans may have benefited in the short term from trusting them in the past, in the long-term, they have had to endure heavy costs. Therefore, from now on, we must wait for the new opposition coalition in Syria to squander more and more of their beliefs in order to attract Western support. The new US plan faces an important obstacle and that is the armed Salafi opposition, who are against the new coalition and the main arena of conflict against the Syrian government is currently under their control.

Source: Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 13 Dec 12

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

Has the new US plan for Syria been initiated

The election in the United States has come to an end and the Americans have promised that once the election race is finished, they will return to the scene of the Syrian crisis. The United States' regional and international supporters criticize this country's lack of a specific strategy regarding the Syrian crisis. Less than a week ago, with the publication of a report, David Schenker, an adviser to the Pentagon and one of the experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) reported the start of this phase. Schenker said that Walid Jumblatt has had a meeting with him in Lebanon and has criticized the United States' lack of a specific strategy regarding the Syrian crisis. According to Schenker, now that the US administration has put behind the election race, it will focus its concentration on Syria. The Doha summit is assessed as constituting a start for this phase.

The Syrian government's opposition are numerous and varied and they can be classified from various angles. The political opposition goes one way and the armed opposition another. The Salafis and Islamists have one dream for Syria's future and the seculars and the liberals have another. During 19 months of crisis in Syria, they have been unable to establish a joint path, a single approach, and a unified structure for themselves. This division is also completely evident among their international supporters. Saudi Arabia is providing weapons support for groups that are close to Al-Qa'idah including the Al-Nasra group. Turkey and Qatar have chosen a political/military path and are helping the forces of the Syrian "free army." The Europeans have pinned their hopes on political groups and are supporting the "opposition Transitional National Council" by any means possible. However, the Americans have differences of opinion with others over all the three above-mentioned groups.

The United States, which has been influenced by unsuccessful experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently in Libya, are not prepared to trust Al-Qa'idah and the Salafis. Furthermore, they are not particularly hopeful that Qatar and others will have significant influence on these groups. Consequently, even if Washington is prepared to trust these groups for Bashar al-Assad's overthrow, there is no guarantee that they will pay any attention to US policies in Syria's future. The saga of the attack on the US Consulate in the city of Benghazi in Libya once again proved that giving leeway to Al-Qa'idah and armed Salafis is to nurture an enemy in your own backyard. Washington also has a difference of opinion with the Europeans for a variety of reasons. Several European countries issued cartes blanches for the "Transitional National Council" political group months ago and France has announced that it recognizes this group as the Syrian people's new representative. But the Americans do not consider this group as possessing even the minimum characteristics for the acceptance of the role of opposition leader. Recently, Hillary Clinton announced in Zagreb that she considers this institution to lack the necessary capability and qualification for leading the opposition.

Based on news that has been received from Doha, it appears that the United States has chosen a new path. This is the same thing that Burhan Ghalioun, the former chairman of the Syrian opposition Transitional National Council, considered a "US plan" for Syria, the preliminary action to which would be to discard the opposition Transitional National Council. In their new plan, the United States has put forward another individual called Riyadh Saif. He is a businessman and a former member of the Syrian parliament with liberal beliefs that are close to those of the Americans. According to a plan put forward yesterday by Saif in the Doha summit, a new structure will be formed for the Syrian government's opposition groups, which will no longer be headed by the opposition Transitional National Council. This organization will have a 50 member Council and the opposition Transitional National Council can only have 15 representatives in it. However, the opposition Transitional National Council is opposed to this plan and no news have so far been received from Doha other than the continuation of disputes. But the important point is that when the United States is not prepared to trust Bashar Assad's political opposition, it will not open the way to his armed opposition. The latter have anti-US beliefs and over the past days, Western media, who seem to have suddenly woken up after 19 months of bloodshed, are accusing them of "war crimes." US pressure on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to reduce weapons support for armed groups is further testament to this claim.

Nevertheless, Saif and other individuals that the United States is seeking to put forward, will also be unable to play the role of opposition leader, at least in the short term. Consequently, it seems that in the near future, neither Bashar Assad's opposition will unite, nor will countries opposed to the Syrian regime become aligned. The important question by US think tanks, under today's conditions in Syria, is that even if Bashar Assad withdraws from power, who will take responsibility for providing security in Syria after months of excessive arms dispatch to this country? Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi, the special United Nations (UN) envoy for Syrian affairs, has warned in his latest press conference that Syria can turn into the "new Somalia!"

BBC Monitoring International Reports

 | November 14, 2012 |

Text of commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Has the new US plan for Syria been initiated?" by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 7 November.

Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 07 Nov 12

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

Why the opposition do not like the 'Eid-related ceasefire

Tomorrow is the last day of the Eid-related ceasefire in Syria; the plan that was hoped would be able to create a "break" in the tragedy of blood spilling and killings in Syria. Nevertheless, Western and Arab news agencies are reporting the continuation of conflicts in Syria. The commander of the armed opposition in the city of Aleppo has also told the France News Agency: "From the very beginning, Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi's plan was born dead.' Why did the ceasefire plan not finalize?

Obstacles to the "Eid-related micro-strategy"

Although the news in the last few days have indicated bombings in Damascus and Dayr al-Zawr and the armed opposition have also announced that conflicts have continued, a relative decrease in conflicts cannot be dismissed with certainty nor can it be claimed that no change has occurred in the level of conflicts. However, it can be said that expectations from the plan dubbed the micro-strategy of the UN and the region's countries, within the framework of [Kofi] Annan's six point peace plan, were not met. It seems that the outcome of Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi's plan did not fulfil the interests of the Syrian opposition. One of the issues found with this plan is that there is no specific plan in it for the "day after" the Eid-related ceasefire; although, the complications of the Syrian crisis have also made the preparation of such a plan difficult. This point notwithstanding, the Eid-related micro-strategy would in practice have opened the way for a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

Distance between the Yemeni solution and the Syrian one

An overall approach shows that there are only two possibilities for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. The first possibility is that the crisis ends with a "political agreement"; something similar to what happened in Yemen. This means that in the shadow of a ceasefire, the countries of the region or Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi can create a "transitional government" by using intermediation and patriarchy, and also making hidden and visible deals. But in the current situation, this method will not get anywhere for two reasons. First, the Syrian government's opposition are greatly dispersed. Their various meetings during the past year in Turkey, France, Egypt and Qatar have shown that they have differences within themselves to the same degree that they have with Bashar al-Assad. The armed government opposition does not even have a united command. Therefore, the Syrian government's opposition lack united organization to be able to manage a political agreement. Additionally, in any solution based on a political agreement, the other side consists of the Syrian government. Although the Damascus government has said that it is ready for negotiations, it bases any agreement on the presence of Bashar Al-Assad in the transitional government; a condition that the opposition will not accept. For this reason, the opposition knows that if the ceasefire is supposed to lead to such a solution, they will not benefit from it.

Free elections and the opposition's problem

The other possibility of a political solution is the organization of "free elections." The government's opposition will not earn anything from this method either. They do not have a united and specific candidate; therefore dispersed votes in such elections will lead to nothing but defeat for them. Furthermore, a democratic way of change has certain customs, similar to what we witnessed in Egypt. Parliamentary and presidential elections without the existence of a new constitution, and ensuring the country's security, require individuals who know the methods and conventions of politics well; exactly what the Syrian opposition is lacking! Consequently, the second political solution will also fail to earn anything for the opposition.

The opposition do not like a ceasefire

Consequently, the Syrian government's armed opposition has had no reason to remain committed to a ceasefire. They have chosen the continuation of guerrilla warfare in the hope of weakening the government; a choice the winner of which is not apparent but its losers will undoubtedly be the innocent people of Syria.

A few other problems that have also obstructed the success of the Eid-related ceasefire should also be pointed out here:

A noticeable part of the armed fighters in Syria are armed foreigners; people who have come to Syria with the intention of jihad but holding heretic thoughts and are supported by Al-Qa'ida and some of the region's countries. These individuals also have no reason for accepting or keeping committed to a ceasefire.

Today, everyone knows that a group of European countries and the United States are present in the military and political front facing the Syrian government. These countries have repeatedly shown that in spite of claiming that they support the innocent people of Syria, they have no inclination to end the crisis in this country. The latest example of this is the Security Council's veto of the proposed Russian resolution for the necessity of a ceasefire. Analysts believe that the best situation for the US and the Europeans is the continuation of this crisis in a way that Syria remains a spent and non-influential country as far as regional developments are concerned, and the attention and capabilities of Iran and Hezbollah are focused on and limited to the crisis in Damascus, rather than Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and ...