Regime change in Syria? Not if the Israelis have a say in it:
At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.
This isn’t interesting for what it says, but rather how it is said.
Firstly, the article talks about scenarios “if Bashar Assad is toppled,” meaning that for all intents and purposes the Bush Administration is backpedaling on nation building and moving more towards decapitation as a method of regime-change.
Secondly, given the choices (chaos, Islamic fundamentalism, or a new leader), we can infer one of two things: (a) Either Assad is a willing broker for peace, or (b) Assad is utterly incompetent and the Israelis like that.
Whether the administration likes that assessment is another matter altogether. But it does seem as if nation building such as we’re seeing in the new Iraq is no longer the first method of removing dangerous regimes to American interests.