The former Lebanese security chief warns against the consequences of Assad’s fall

Editor’s note: We post this article to inform on what’s being said about Syria around the globe. Posting is not fully endorsing.

Jamil Sayyed

Alternative views on the situation in Syria, long silenced in the mainstream Western press, are more and more often making inroads into some of the most important Western media outlets. One of the most interesting such comments was published in the French daily Le Figaro, which dared to present to its readers an interview with the general Jamil Sayyed, former head of the security service (Surete Generale) of Lebanon, a country situated nest to Syria and still linked to it by millions of human ties.

“Despite all the claims of the propaganda from the satellite television of the Gulf states, as well as from the states of the West, Syria has a state, and this state is very strong,” Sayyed told Le Figaro. “For 18 months these media outlets have been predicting the fall of Bashar Assad’s government, but this government is still in place! Do you know many other states, which, placed in a similar situation, would resist so long? Syria is facing an unprecedented media war, conducted against it on a planetary scale. It faces hostility from all of its neighbors and direct interference of the Arab petro-states of the Gulf region, which commit unlimited financial resources to the Syrian state’s destruction. But it is still there.”

As the Western public opinion is waking up to a complicated reality – Bashar Assad has support of a significant part of the population, while the radical opposition fighting him does not have the full support of the formerly underprivileged Sunni majority – the main question arises, which future historians will have a hard time solving. That question is – why was the Western support for the Syrian radical opposition so unanimous? Why were there so few doubts and misgivings, while the general desire to see the victory of the opposition, including some of its members with openly medieval, Islamist views, was so universal? General Sayyed has his answer for this question:

“The Syrian state never tried to please everyone, it never submitted to the American dictates in the region, whether these dictates touched upon the Palestinian question, its support for Shia resistance movements in Lebanon or the invasion of Iraq. It also did not compromise on its close relationship with Iran. This made Syria an obstacle, which the Western powers decided to take away.”

Few people dispute the fact that Syria had a friendly relationship with Iran, which is far from being an ideal state in terms of respect for minorities or women’s rights. But are some of the American allies in the Gulf any better in this sphere? No. In fact, they are worse, and this is the fact that general Sayyed stresses:

“The Syrian regime was far from perfect, but in comparison to other Arab regimes, still supported by the West, it is by far the best. At least, it is a secular state… There is simply no comparison with the local allies of the United States, where Christian mass is forbidden and where women have no right to travel alone.”

Sayyed stresses that Assad’s Syria is viewed by many, especially the local Christians, as the last defending wall against chaos. The destruction of that wall would be “disastrous,” since the Christians in the Middle East already had their local minorities dramatically shrinking in Iraq and now have it shrinking also in Egypt. “You, the Westerners, have decided to destroy this wall of Christians’ protection,” Sayyed said to Le Figaro.

It is interesting to note that the two most demonized allies of Assad, Iran and the Shia-dominated Lebanese movement Hezbollah, reveal a lot more caution and restraint in the conflict than the noisy “fans” of the Syrian rebels from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Iranian president did not scold his Egyptian counterpart when the latter called for the resignation of Mr. Assad during the recent summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran. As for the Hezbollah, general Sayyed, who supervised this movement’s activity for many years, says its main goal is to protect Lebanon from repeating Syria’s fate. In the words of Sayyed, Lebanon is a “democracy continuously threatened by sectarian dictatorships, which destroy the state when they start fighting each other.” Unfortunately, this picture, long typical for Lebanon, looks more and more like modern Syria now.

Source: The Voice Of Russia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s