Syrian Regime Stability Simulation – Update and Intermediary Summary
Monday, May 16, 2011 at 6:52AM 
What began as a small protest in the small country of Tunisia, the Arab Spring erupted, transforming the political landscape throughout the Middle East and North Africa. People yearning for better opportunities and political freedom began protests throughout the region. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, in power for thirty years, resigned his position under intense pressure, while Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, in power for forty years, clings to power following a NATO airpower-backed rebellion. Bahrain and Yemen also endure protests that endanger their political leadership. Another country, with a long history of brutal crackdowns against its citizens, with deep-rooted repression from a powerful security apparatus, and a key player in the Middle East peace process, begins to see cracks in its domination from small pockets of protest inspired by the events in region – Syria.
Wikistrat’s Syrian Regime Stability simulation analyzes the uprising in Syria using Wikistrat’s unique platform. Wikistrat’s analysts and subscribers, led by Chief Analyst Thomas PM Barnett, collaborate online to examine the Syrian Regime’s stability and its effects on key themes. How will a change in Syria’s Regime affect regional stability including Syria’s relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia? How will Syria’s relationship with Iran change and how will it affect the region? Will terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah benefit from changes in Syria’s government? Will Kurds rise up against the Syrian Regime or other sectarian violence ensue?
By incorporating possible scenarios, impacts on the countries involved in the region and diverse policy options for these countries, Wikistrat simulations give its analytic community a continually evolving up-to-date model of the geopolitical reality, rather than a static document.
Some of the Scenarios Proposed and their summaries:
(Scenarios plotted by Ryan Mauro, strategic analyst with Wikistrat and author of worldthreats.com)
1) Assad Survives and Quells Dissent – The Assad regime finds itself in a stronger position after violently crushing the uprising. The most influential activists are silenced through various means and the regime is able to identify its opponents and learn how to combat their strategies as a result of this victory. The opposition is demoralized and fractured while some opt to join the government as a minority voice following minor political reforms. The Muslim Brotherhood decides to officially endorse the Assad regime as an ally in the fight against the West.
Suggested by Trevor Westra, of theolog.ca, on the probability of this scenario occurring, “The plausibility of Assad emerging from the current crisis, with his leadership intact, depends heavily on the continued allegiance of the army…His commanders, most of whom are Alawite loyalists, appear firm in their support.”
2) Assad Survives but is Unstable – Assad adopts a more-liberal tone and institutes minor economic and political reforms. His military stays intact. Visible signs of dissent remain, but the uprising ultimately recedes because its participants cannot organize a formidable opposition movement nationwide. As a result, the West no longer views their support of the opposition as a viable policy option.
A risk of this scenario by Nick Ottens, of www.atlanticsentinel.com, states, “If unrest persists…the burden of unemployment and further undermining the regime’s legitimacy even in the eyes of people who might have a vested interest in its survival.”
3) Assad Survives Through Iranian Intervention – Iranian forces secure Assad's regime, while strengthening its grip on Syria. A brief civil war breaks out but is quickly ended through the deployment of Iranian Revolutionary Guards personnel and terrorists from Hezbollah and Hamas. The IRGC openly operates in Syria and becomes more intimately involved in the operations of the security services and government agencies. A series of agreements making Syria essentially a military base for Iran are signed and the West concludes that luring Syria away from Iran is no longer a viable policy option.
Comments from Mark Safranski, of zenpundit.com, include, “I have great difficulty imagining Israel and the United States tolerating, say, 25,000 – 50,0000 IRGC in combined arms units operating in Syria on behalf and in conjunction with the Syrian Army, slaughtering thousands of Syrians.”
4) Regime Change Brings Moderates to Power – Assad's regime does not survive the uprising, and is replaced by Moderates. The Assad regime is removed through a popular uprising and/or military coup. The opposition forces declare victory and the secular democratic opposition comes to the forefront of the transitional government. The Muslim Brotherhood performs well in the parliamentary elections but is a minority. The new government vows to bring Syria closer to the West and institute vast reforms.
This scenario is summarized by Andrew Eccleston of the American Military University as, “A perfect storm of Iranian miscalculation and division within the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood brings a moderate regime to power in Syria.”
5) Regime Change Brings Muslim Brotherhood into power: Assad's regime does not survive the uprising, and is replaced by Muslim Brotherhood leading the parliament. A series of defections from Assad’s government, including the military and intelligence services, leads to a civil war similar to the one in Libya. The Assad regime is removed from power and the Muslim Brotherhood declares victory. The Brotherhood and other Islamist parties hold a majority in the new parliament after elections are held and oversee the writing of a new constitution which makes Islam the primary source of legislation. The new government says it will maintain close ties to Iran and will continue to support Hamas and Hezbollah.
Professor Robert Edwin Kelly, of asiansecurityblog, also contributed to this simulation as to whether the United States should abstain from taking action in Syria. “[T]he ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) threshold must stay somewhat high, otherwise the West could get chain-ganged into multiple human rights interventions that will increasingly look to Arab audiences like neo-imperialism.”
To Join Wikistrat's Simulation and Interactive Wiki - click here
Reader Comments (3)
Re: #3.
Basically the same thing Saudi Arabia did with Bahrain. That being the case, however, what the US and Israel think is almost irrelevant compared to:
What does Iraq think? The pro-Iranian Shiite factions might not object to having Iranian troops to the east and west, but I don't imagine anyone else the country will.
What does the Iranian people think? Achmadinejad's been cheering on protesters in other countries while overlooking his own crackdown. Contributing troops to a crackdown in an allied country just highlights the hypocrisy.
What does the Syrian people think? Even people who don't agree with the protesters might balk at bringing foreign troops in to put them down.
and last, but not least . . .
What do the Saudis and the GCC think?
Well, we won't be seeing any peace agreements being signed at Camp Davis for awhile. Things are changing fast in that part of the world. I don't see Israel just sitting around waiting for something bad to happen. I think we will see some aggression on their part. The recent violence where "marchers" were fired on is not a good sign. If Iran, Syria and Egypt all end up with governments that are religious based then war is inevitable. The Muslim Brotherhood may not take over the government in Egypt, but it is going to be heard. Whoever takes over is going to have to show the Egyptian people that they are not going to be bullied by the United States. A shooting war with Israel might benefit the regimes in Syria and Iran. Unite the people against the old enemy.
Divided Arabic tribal groups, exploitive unified Persian groups, and intrusive Western globalization guys. Tough situation again! Who could be the Alexander equivalent today, and will he be prudent, and last longer, this time?