The truth about David Ignatius

At the end of his post about a Washington Post editorial yesterday, Daled Amos writes:

Maybe they should just go back to having terrorists writing op-eds.

Maybe someone in the Post’s editorial department was listening because today, op-ed columnist David Ignatius acted as a PR flack published an interview with President Bashar Assad of Syria, A New Partner in Syria?.

Assad is apparently an apt observer of the American scene.

In all three “hopes,” Assad seemed to be looking for a new start with Obama after years of chilly relations with Bush. Assad said he knew little about Obama or his policies but has heard that he is more in contact with ordinary people than Bush has been, which, Assad contended, would give Obama a better understanding of America.

The three hopesare part of a list of demands Syria published right after the election in order for Assad to “receive Obama.” In other words, Ignatius is serving the purpose of the official Syrian media.

On the trick question of Syria and Iran how does Assad deal with it?

On the crucial question of Syria’s future relations with Iran, Assad was noncommittal. He said the relationship with Iran wasn’t about the “kind of statehood” Syria has or its cultural affinities but about protecting Syrian interests against hostile neighbors. “It’s about who plays a role in this region, who supports my rights,” he said. “It’s not that complicated.”

Supports his rights? Surely this ought to have inspired a followup question from Ignatius. But it didn’t.

Here’s what a more serious observer, Danielle Pletka, just wrote about Iran and Syria.

Yet Iran and Syria’s ties have only deepened. Indeed, Iran most likely had a role in financing Syria’s construction of the illicit North Korean nuclear reactor, remains one of the largest foreign investors in the country and conducts joint training with the Syrian military on advanced Russian-supplied weaponry.

It is not inconceivable that the regime in Damascus might throw its supporters in Tehran under the bus in exchange for prestige, cash and a free hand in Lebanon.

Ignatius didn’t ask anything about Syria’s nuclear program. And Pletka’s observation about what it would take to draw Syria away from Iran is chilling. Again all Ignatius is doing is flacking for Assad, not interviewing him.

Ignatius also asked Assad about Hezbollah:

Asked whether Syria was prepared to restrain Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite militia in Lebanon, Assad said this was a matter the Israelis should sort out in separate negotiations with the Lebanese. Indeed, he promoted the idea of the other negotiating tracks — which would draw in, at least indirectly, Hezbollah and Hamas.

“The longer the border, the bigger the peace,” Assad said. “Hezbollah is on the Lebanese border, not Syrian. Hamas is on the Palestinian border. . . . They should look at those other tracks. They should be comprehensive. If you want peace, you need three peace treaties, on three tracks.”

Again, no follow up. Just acting as a megaphone for Assad. Pletka, though, writes:

But it is unrealistic to expect President Assad to dispose of Hezbollah and Hamas in the same way. Mr. Assad — broadly disliked at home, a member of a mistrusted Alawite minority, comically inept at managing his country’s resources — can maintain his grip on power only as long as he is seen as a vital instrument of Israel’s defeat.

More generally:

Herein lies the fatal flaw of this transformational vision. It assumes that Syria’s leaders want Syria to become a normal state, when in fact, it is essential to the regime’s survival that it remain a pariah. Mr. Assad and his mafia have made an art of extorting subsistence assistance from the outside world, most recently by holding out prospects for better relations with the West and Israel. But a new Middle East would mean the end of Mr. Assad, which is why he will always turn back to Iran, and why the road to peace in the Middle East will never run through Damascus.

Pletka’s assessment is in line with that of Barry Rubin in his book “The Truth About Syria” In an interview with Michael Totten this is how Dr. Rubin describes people like David Ignatius.

To begin with, to understand Syria—like other regional forces—one must first examine the nature of the regime and its real interests. The way to do this is not to cite the latest interview or op-eds by Syrian leaders or propagandists in the Western media or what one of them told some naïve Western “useful idiot” who traveled to Damascus but rather to look at what the Syrian rulers say among themselves, what they do, how they structure the regime and perceive of their interests.

Syria is not a radical regime because it has been mistreated by the West or Israel but because the regime needs radicalism to survive. It is a minority dictatorship of a small non-Muslim minority and it offers neither freedoms nor material benefit. It needs demagoguery, the scapegoats of America and Israel, massive loot taken from Lebanon, an Iraq which is either destabilized or a satellite, and so on.

No matter how generous, gracious or accommodating Ignatius portrays Assad, Assad is interested in only one thing: perpetuating his own rule over Syria. Getting more direct control over Lebanon would also be to the dictator’s liking. Portraying him as some sort of Middle Eastern Mr. Rogers as Ignatius does shows how little he understand the subject of his interview. Ignatius assumes (or pretends) that Assad is like him holding the same hopes and same premises about what constitutes peace. But Assad is motivated by his own ambition, not by any hopes for a peaceful Middle East.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.