While the recent assassination of top Syrian intelligence officer Gen. Muhammad Suleiman is old news, I just read this article today and thought I should share. Take a look.
If it seems at all confusing, that’s OK… It’s always challenging explaining the political dynamic of the Middle East to people who are unfamiliar with how things work over there. But the article does well capturing a very telling trend in regional events: they bring more questions than answers. This is especially true in Syria and Lebanon, so it’s no wonder people there are constantly coming up with new conspiracy theories.
But I’m mainly talking about assassinations here. The political climate in which they’re carried out are indeed mysterious, whether for lack of transparency (Syria) or intense divisions (Lebanon). Reading the article, I’m reminded of all the others who’ve been killed and the questions their murders understandably elicited.
Who’s behind the countless bombings like these? Who killed Muhammad Suleiman? Who killed Imad Mughniyah? Who killed all those other guys in Lebanon, from Wissam Eid back to Rafiq Hariri? What about Ghazi Kanaan; what’s the story behind that?
The ‘obvious’ culprit -for some people- is Syria (read Damascus). But for those prone to wanton speculation and far fetched conclusions, it seems strange that so many choose to repeatedly point their finger at the the Assad regime whenever a VIP is killed. It’s almost like a trend in some circles, but those expecting me to join the Syria-bashing chorus will be disappointed – I love Syria (the country, the food, the people, their accents, etc).
Back to the subject of the post… Can you conspiracy theorists please start getting creative again? While you’ve always been a source of entertainment to me, in reality, you’ve also been a source of information and knowledge (though not all of you). At the risk of stating the obvious – it’s good to know what people are thinking, and conspiracy theories help with that. Good ones also give rise to some important questions that need to be answered. That’s why it’s best not to speak in absolutes and to keep an open mind. Cause really, you never know…
I can’t help but agree that most of the time “one should not speak until one knows.”
Related posts:
- Conspiracy Theorists’ Field Day
- Israel’s Conspiracy Theories
- HRW’s Amazing Letter & The Open Conspiracy in Palestine
- Noor: The Conspiracy Against the Arab Family and Unromantic Arab Men
- The Invisible Syrian Hand in Tripoli?
I have always thought Assad can't be that bad, his moustache is not large or silly enough. Research indicates that the size and/or silliness of a moustache is an infallible guide to extremism.Seriously, his willingess to at least discuss matters with Israel in the past suggests that he is pragmatic enough to be part of solution in the unlikely event that conditions are ever right.
Posted by xoggoth | August 17, 2008, 5:31 amthose expecting me to join the Syria-bashing chorus will be disappointed – I love Syria (the country, the food, the people, their accents, etc).
Let’s translate this message to all the Syrian political prisoners rotting in jail or unmarked graves.
“As long as Kalash loves Syrian food, you are screwed.”
Posted by Firouz | August 17, 2008, 1:09 pmTo contribute something more than distaste for how certain members of Kabob make cold geopolitical calculations (yummy food?!), here’s Stratfor’s take:
Suleiman was no minor Syrian official. Stratfor sources claim he was a close confidante to the president and was entrusted with a number of highly sensitive security and intelligence issues, including managing weapons transfers for Lebanon-based Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Rumors are spreading like wildfire over who carried out the assassination, but given the current regional dynamics and Suleiman’s support for Syria’s peace talks with Israel, this is an assassination that could very well be covered with Hezbollah’s fingerprints.
The Syrian regime is extremely vulnerable to infighting and has recently been victim to several high-profile coup plots. But the president has been rather adept at quelling these internal threats over the years, and still appears to have a firm grip on his regime. Moreover, Stratfor sources claim Suleiman supported Damascus’ negotiations with Israel, and was not considered a dissenter at the time of his death. If the president were concerned about a power struggle spiraling out of control at home, it is unlikely that he would have followed through with his trip to Tehran the same weekend.
The more likely culprit is Hezbollah. Suleiman was in charge of ensuring arms shipments to Hezbollah from Syria (and we are told would charge high commissions for these arms deliveries, much to Hezbollah’s discontent.) If Syria’s negotiations with Israel are to go anywhere, Syria would be expected to cut off Hezbollah’s weapons supply and crack down on the militant group, signs of which Stratfor has already been tracking. Since Suleiman was the main liaison between the Syrian regime and Hezbollah, he would have been the one to carry out the marching orders for Hezbollah’s crackdown, beginning with a weapons cutoff.
And so on…
By the way, it’s interesting how many Suleimans there are in positions of power throughout the Arab world.
-Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman
-Lebanese army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman
Any others? The Lebanese Suleiman is a Maronite… any family connections between these three? Did the clans fracture and regionalize a long time ago, like the Assads?
Posted by Firouz | August 17, 2008, 1:21 pm