welcome michael province's professor of history at the university of california san diego we appreciate you returning for part two of your discussion on syria and the wider area just on the news the other day shots were from syria into turkey i think a turkish citizen was killed there there's a serious refugee problem on the border and there's talk now in the media of intervention so there's nato turkey's a member of nato there's the united nations there's covert intervention if any intervention you talk to me a little bit about what you know are used for my eyes about the possibilities of intervention and how this internal syrian conflict may spread these to be turkey and so on i don't think there's any possibility of image i don't think there will be any intervention and some of the people who have talked about intervention are are i mean it's fanciful and ridiculous so the  longstanding historical reasons for animosity with syria some of these countries have talked about arming the rebels this is nonsense there is no way that qatar or the saudis can arm anyone in syria and in order to do this they would have to either take the arms into the damascus airport which is under the control of the central government obviously or they would have to move them through a neighboring country they will not be able to do this none of the neighboring countries would permit this including turkey none of the countries in the region including israel or the united states for that matter are interested in all of them would like this just t syria than anything else and so the prospect of arming rebels or prolonging the conflict or intervening in any significant way is not in the cards no matter what anybody says it's it's  mean it's just not a not a real possibility it may be a stick or a kind of a lever to use against against the syrian government against the russians perhaps but it's not a serious prospect you know you said something interesting a minute ago about you know israel's view israel says it's itself that it's the only democracy in the middle east that you characterize that they're afraid of widespread chaos but i thought the overthrow of the of a dictatorship is you're describing it might be in the interests of democracies talk a little bit more what you mean by regional chaos well a stable geo political system that the israelis dominate militarily diplomatically economically so it's a it's a belated proclamation of love but it's a proclamation of love just a sec so are you saying the israelis would deal in assad side rather than on the side of the they're just there it's absolutely clear i mean it's there's no question about it and it's been stated clearly over and over again last year in may the late i think it was mainly the late new york times correspondent anthony granted a visa to go and visit damascus all the foreign journalists which is to say arab journalists iranian journalists western journalists everybody had been kicked out of the country should be was given a can protect the israelis said this in an interview now the following day the syrian ambassador to the united states imad moustapha had to issue a kind of a defense in the pages  york times where he wrote under his ambassadorial letterhead running the clues does not speak for the syrian government he's a private citizen this is a joke everyone knows that he's not a private citizen he's the most powerful country in the person the country next the president maybe more powerful than the president nobody knows for sure and so for him to say we can destabilize the entire region we stand between chaos and and an order and only we can protect the israeli government is a kind of a inversion of the traditional rhetoric of legitimacy of the syrian state that is breathtaking to behold it's not lost  israelis it's not lost on the syrians it's not lost on the pentagon or the state department that that that weakened assad is dangerous but a swept away is very dangerous  and this is this this is i mean there are people who are or are continually engaged in fantasies about the middle east we used to call people in the government who held these kinds of dreams neo cons who dream of a giant reordering of everything but this is a rather marginal tendency these days and so there are people who would say well if syria goes then we can do what we want and syria and  hizbollah will be cut off in lebanon and then we can do what we want there and then the iranians will not be able to mess around and we can do what we want to over there so we can have a war with syria and a war with iran and take over lebanon and wouldn't it be and more apparent than it was say in two thousand and three when many people in positions of tremendous power in the bush administration in israel and elsewhere actually did talk about this kind of nonsense and intervention takes place it will not be for the reasons that the syrian opposition would like it will be because it's in the interest of some state some neighboring state to do it like well there isn't any at the moment and that's why it won't happen because it's not doesn't appear to be in anybody's interest to get involved in conflict in syria arguably it's not even in the interests of the opposition in syria itself because as i said a few minutes ago the the syrian government is it's not i mean i i wouldn't want to use the word restrained because i think it's it's an obscenity to say that restraint and sanity restraint is wrong but they could be much more murderous than they have been not on an atrocity level but on a to a number a level of sheer numbers and if there was an intervention if there was a significant military threat posed by the free syrian army within syria and there is not today they are not formidable they're not in a position to challenge the government or the army on any on any military bases but if that changed the forces of repression would be fully unleashed and the syrian army would not be going in with with with with machine guns and light artillery they would be going in with air strikes you're painting a pretty dark picture so my i guess my question is still where he's going to go if there's no intervention and the opposition doesn't have the strength to really do what it likes to do what's the well no one knows of course but the idea that we have to do something it's not necessarily a very that something has to be done immediately that we have to act it's other people have to act i think is is as it's  horrible and it's and it's heartbreaking and is just miserably sad as that is i think that there is no useful role that any outside power can really play apart from what is being done now and what has been done in terms of of giving people the ability to leave to flee the country to be fed in turkey or in  jordan to seize the assets of the syrian government to put the entire ruling structure under sanctions which has been done to to strangle the economy of syria which is in the control of these these countries at the top  o to progressive lee dealer jim eyes internally and externally the syrian leadership and to attempt to the extent possible to make it more difficult for the government to repress with military means the population so the the u n has a mission and there was a an arab league mission with observers and it was unsuccessful this was some months ago but at that time fewer people were getting killed for that period of a few weeks so these kinds of things are not dramatic and they're not satisfying and they don't make people feel better because so many people for good reason are are are heartbroken and want to do something but the truth is that most of us are helpless and doing something may not be doing the wrong thing could be more damaging to long term prospects of the syrian population than than than than doing nothing the government the government is is many people i think i i believe this and i hope that this is true the government is morally weakened now in aether similar sorts of so you can stances like iran for example  so the syrian government now is internally diligent in minds the number of people who turn against it within the population passably actively to demonstrate whatever is increasing and will continue to increase however if the kinds of things that the syrian government has said to legitimize its repression of its own population over the last year are suddenly validated by external moves the government will be weak will be strengthened internally and externally and this is not something that people should want if you see what i mean so an external threat and legitimate external threat from outside especially from the united states or from the gulf powers will strengthen the syrian government in the short term and allow it to crush the opposition more definitively more decisively than it can do now i think i don't know if you or anyone those knows enough to answer this question but i really i remember at the beginning of the libyan intervention there were lots of people who said obama should do more and take the leadership we should do this and we should do that you had mccain and yet hawks and all the rest of it and we're we're kicking off an election year and i just wonder what you think about the syrian intervention by the united states to some form through nato through the u n gets into the campaign and becomes an idea difficult to stop a given that i thought it will i haven't and  iran an issue that has to be dealt with this is and this is a terrible development if these kinds of things managed to take on steam to to get legs as they say among journalists i think  because they they make action they create an imperative for action which is counterproductive for all and in all involved i think and so we hopefully that won't happen now i would say that one thing that that i think was instructive is that there was an arab league plan some four or five months ago that was created by the arab league was taken to the united nations where from there it went to the security council where the arab league plan which was devised by arabs by the arab states became an american plan and once it was an american plan the russians could could could convincingly and and legitimately opposed and so what was the tone it was vetoed or was threatened to be vetoed by the soviet by the russians in the united nations security council what this means is that the united if that plan succeeded if that plan was advanced it's only an arab league plan it would be much more difficult for other countries to oppose it and then that would have have created an imperative for some sort of action not military action but some sort of action and it's possible not even unlikely that the united states at that time didn't want that and so allow that plan to go forward with its imprint knowing that it's imprint would guarantee its failure  and so this is the sort of world we live in where the the the association with the united states by the syrian opposition by the arab league can serve to create a dynamic where that those movements can be opposed more convincingly by the syrian government and that too can lead to greater repression and  administration off with a great speech in cairo and now you're saying america is still the kiss of death over there so is obama a failure in terms of middle east policy he's not a failure in terms of middle east policies i mean he's  given what's possible i think he's he's done well i mean he's done well in a way that has thankfully eluded the myopic and not very well informed  continually attempting to provoke the american government over and over again and obama to his credit said repeatedly well we're sure that the iranian public actually to be he was trying to create a response that would that would bolster his popularity because many people said iranian specialist that george bush was responsible that the axis of evil was responsible for the election of at mena jed and that the the sweeping aside of the iranian reformers so obama was clever enough not to play this game and i'm advantage and was forced to steal his election because of it if obama had played had said we won't take that we're going to we're going to destroy you his popularity medina jeddah popularity would have gone through the roof he would have been it would have been unnecessary to steal the election and he would have been reelected hand y so no one notices here not one newspaper reported this as far as i know but this was what was happening and it was smart and it was clever and it was artful and i for one was impressed the situation in egypt was impressive i'm sure that phone calls took place between the state department and and the generals and they said you've got to cut him loose but we're not going to cut you loose as long as you cut him loose and by the way don't shoot people i'm sure these these conversations took place and one can you don't have to have a sharp historical sensibility to know that no previous american administration would have been clever enough not to back our dictator until the streets were were were running with blood which is what mobarak would've been happy to do and if he had thought like the shah did and like dozens of others have done before so this was something new and he's not the president the government the american government is not going to get any credit for that but historically speaking it's new and it was it was wise and it kept people from from being killed and the outcome was sure anyway i mean mubarak was going so the sooner the the and i'm sure also that people like robert gates and secretary of state clinton didn't want to cut him loose and he overrode those people now i'm i'm speculating but i think that that's a that's a reasonable spec i saw just yesterday on the news pictures in the cities with lots of ta s where syria get to get those tanks and are they being resupplied and by whom and what is the united states think of the well the entire syrian military comes from russia and from the soviet union before that and the syrian still owe the soviet union billions which will never be repaid and nobody except from the resupply during the seventies after the seventy three war from the resupply after eighty two when the syrians fought the israelis in lebanon they lost seventy fighter planes in a single day finding and see israeli air force for example the airplanes were replaced  so the entire armory comes from russia the russians have long term relations with syria and of course putin himself is sensitive to the possibility of a popular movement against his government in moscow something which actually has been happening so there's a real coalition of interests there more so right now in fact than in any time in the last twenty years probably near the eastern or rather the western mediterranean coast a naval base which they want to keep it see only russian naval base in the mediterranean and for russia in alliance with syria a close relationship with syria is a matter of geopolitical credibility prestige of tradition so it's very important to put and not something that will be  the russians will not be talked out of this it's not something that they're going to not something that they're going to give up on survival of the of the syrian government as presently can because any other possibility threatens russian interests in a way that that that putin and probably also by the syrian government are just playing for time they're just an effort to dry out the clock to wait until either news overtakes the syrian news on the on the headlines to allow the syrian government well bedfellows yes i guess they do actually i'm not i mean it's you know turkey is kind of a wild card because the turkish government and and and prime minister on i think in in a way because the syrian and turkish relations were had warmed very considerate over the last ten years and ed to on with was was inclined to publicly claim his friendship with with with president assad with bashar al assad and i took part in an academic meetings between turkish and syrian scholars in istanbul and elsewhere these kinds of things would have been where the syrian minister of culture for example would come and address to the to the conference these sorts of things were inconceivable during the lifetime of hafez lawson so i think that there's a sense on the part of of and on and other hiring a high over what syria has done in in syria and i think that this is a bit of a wildcard sciri turkey is a powerful country it's a nato country and it has attempted to enjoy good relations with all the countries of the region and of course is bordering syria but there again there's no real interest there's no real national interest in in in invading or there has been talk of  turkish troops inside syria but it's hard to see what interest of turkey this would actually serve it's possible and if if something big happens it's going to come from there it will come from my pleasure thanks very much