Assad bailed by Friends

Not so long ago everyone who knew anything was numbering Bashar al Assad's days in power.

This was not simply a case of the West misunderstanding the Arabs (although Western analysts got it wrong). Nor was it a just case of the West seeing it all through Israeli eyes (although the Israelis got it wrong).

Because the Arabs and the Turks got it wrong too.

After the wave of the Arab Spring swamped dictator after dictator, we had all become used to regime's falling rather than standing. When Syria's turn came, why should that regime prove any different? Was Assad really so much stronger than Mubarak?

Apparently so. But why? Why has the unstoppable wave of the Arab Spring come to a halt in Syria?

I suppose we should begin with a note of caution. Assad is not yet ultimately victorious. Just this morning the US has decided to start (overtly) arming the rebels, that may have an effect. Assad has, however, already proven himself more resilient than Mubarak and Gaddafi.

Had the Shia of Bahrain received the sort of assistance sent by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to Syria's rebels, the monarchy there would probably have fallen.

So, after having watched it all, here is my advice for dictators to follow to keep themselves safe.

Firstly, you need powerful friends. Gaddafi had no real friends outside of southern Africa. While these people could send him militia, they couldn't veto action at the UN, or send him arms.

Secondly, democratic friends are only so much use. There was no way America would arm Mubarak in the same way that Russia arms Assad once the shooting began.

Thirdly you need friends in the neighbourhood. The role of Hezbollah in the battle for Qusayr may have been exaggerated. The Syrian army provided the artillery, air power and many troops, but Hezbollah guerrillas may have tipped the balance. Syria also has a highly significant border with Shia run Iraq, providing a bridge to a friendly Iran.

Fourthly it helps to be part of an ethnic minority. I don't mean a tiny minority of two or three percent, but 15% to 20% helps. It provides you with a ready core of people willing to fight. This is true for Assad, and also the al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain, as it was for Saddam in Iraq.

Fifthly, foreign support for those rising up against you is a double edged sword. If you can retain the edge (having tanks and an air force really helps here) foreign support can discredit your opponents and galvanise your own people. Spending too much time worrying about outsiders won't help. Concentrate on your own friends abroad. Tell the Russians that you are a great advert for their weaponry. Does American support for the rebels really help them recruit? Does al Qaeda support for the rebels unite America behind them?

Sixth, while trying to stop foreigners supporting your opponents might not help, stirring up trouble in their backyards almost certainly will. Erdogan took a big risk in getting involved in Syria. It looks like it might be all downhill for him from thereon in. Note that trouble in Yemen has flared up again. I expect Bahrain to witness further stirrings over the summer. If Turkey and the Arabian peninsular are in turmoil, the rebel backers there will have bigger fish to fry. America will be much more cautious about intervening in the middle east.

Seventh, don't panic. Bashar may not have looked like a hardman dictator to start with. There was talk that it was his father's cronies rather than him that ran the show. But he has held on. Long enough to get sufficient Iranian and Hezbollah to decisively shift the momentum at Qusayr. It really isn't over yet, but if his forces can push on to Aleppo, it will be all but done. He has shown enough caution in the early stages, and now looks ruthless enough to finish the job. Had he shown that level of ruthlessness in the beginning, he would have killed unarmed demonstrators. Now he is fighting a civil war.

Eighth, be useful. This may look easier said than done, but how useful was Mubarak, really? Israel is the indispensable US ally. Whereas Syria really is indispensable to both Russia and Iran. You may get more for being indispensable to Russia than 'nice to have' to America.

Bashar al Assad may not have looked strong in the beginning, but whereas Mubarak had only the backing of democracies, Assad had Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, prepared to publicly veto resolutions and break any amount of sanctions to help him survive. Totally unconcerned about the human rights of his opponents,

While Gaddafi had battle hardened Africa militia, the equivalent of Hezbollah at is disposal, he had no help from major powers. Ben Ali was no strategic use to anyone.

Looking down my list you may see that nearly all of it is about how you manage relationships with allies. Assad has done that perfectly. Showing enough determination to win without making it too difficult for his friends to support him (like the Kims of North Korea).

So the two real biggies are look after your alliances, and a relationship with Russia or China will probably help more in a really tight spot than any amount of closeness with a democracy.

The Arabs are reputed to say "better be America's enemy than friend, America betrays its friends and appeases its enemies". For Arab nations, that may be true.

I think Assad will survive. As soon as I saw Hassan Nasrallah publicly commit to the fight I was sure he would survive. Not because I think Hezbollah are invincible (highly effective though they are), but because I think they are smart. Unlike the trigger happy arm chair generals of pundit land, I do not think they would be backing a loser.

The US seems to agree, that is why they have announced they will now overtly arm the rebels.

Assad needs to get to Aleppo before those arms get to the battlefield, then he will have won.