Obviously what’s going down in Syria ain’t your normal Egyptian or Tunisian situation Arab Spring.

If open source intelligence is to be believed, it may not be just Syrian forces loyal to Bashar al-Asad involved in suppressing demonstrations, because I’ve also heard that Israel says Iran and Hizbollah have armed units working directly with the Syrian government. . . .and they would know.

Why might this be significant? Because Hiz exists primarily in Lebanon due to direct Syrian support and Asad’s consent in allowing Iran to provide sizeable amounts of money, weapons and training through Syria.

Conversely however, Hiz would seem to have some allegiance to the Syrian government, based on their longstanding relationship as I’ve described. Although al-Qa’idah or tanzim al-qa’idah if you like, has no common ideology between Hiz and its backer Iran, they both favor their own brand and interpretation of Shari’ah law.

It isn’t clear to me, or anyone else is my bet, who might step into a power vacuum created should Asad’s government fall, a government that has been in power since 1966? Therefore, the point of my rambling on here is: regionally and internationally we might all be better off with Bashar al-Asad remaining in control, because although, as I’ve said, Hiz and al-Qa’idah have no common ideology, they both do share a common Arabic proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and both despise America and Israel.

Bonus ramble: Zawahari seeing the conflict as a Sunni fundamentalist vs. Alawite struggle is interesting to me, because although the Alawites' beliefs are fairly undisclosed, known only to a closed group of elders, I know that they believe in the trinity consisting of the prophet Muhammad, his son-in-law Ali (Alawite. . .get it?) and the prophet's companion, Salman Al-Farsi. . .more in line with Shi'a Iran; many Sunni clerics don't consider the Alawites as Muslims, but as heretics. : o

Well, given that one of Al-Qaida's founding grievances against America was our support of the despotic regime in Saudi Arabia, I think it really shouldn't surprise anyone to hear them calling for regime change.
I think this is just another case of important people foolishly following the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and projecting their own goals on people they don't understand. We assume the Syrian protests are about democracy and human rights, because that's our idea of what they lack and what is worth fighting for. Al-Qaeda sees them as being about Islamic fundamentalism, because that's what they think is worth fighting for. So we'll both support them, and then act all hurt and betrayed when it turns out that they were actually after something different.

unless it is a completely servile client state. The destruction of ecumenical Arab identity is almost complete, well done US.

I don't understand the condemnation in many circles of Hizbollah's alliance with the Asad regime or with Iran. Who else they gonna turn to? Honestly? The US/Israel axis or the Sunnis? As we might say, Asad is a thug, but he's sort of their thug.

The only remotely fair, honest partner for Lebanese Shiites would be Turkey, which, despite its Sunni majority, is ecumenical, for Muslims, provided you are loyal to the State. But Turkey has been constrained as a broker by the US. Assad's coreligionists in Turkey don't seem to have too much of a problem. Our ethno-nationalistic, Kurdish irredentists and Anatolian religious conservative darlings, on the other hand...

The US has managed to plunge the Middle East back into a semi-medieval, violent region where atavistic tribal and religious identities dominate. But at least they aren't socialists, BP got its oil, none of that sweet black gold was nationalized, and they all trade in the dollar.