#1,042: Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

                     The “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” 

The Latin expression falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a vintage legal principle found mostly in English common law. Literally translated as “false in one thing, false in everything,” it was long the basis for a trial strategy which held that if a witness or defendant was found to have been untruthful about one part of their testimony, the reliability of their entire testimony could then be called into question. In a sense,  falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus sums up in just 6 words what Aesop’s fable “The Boy (or Shepherd) Who Cried Wolf” was getting at.  (n.b. Many contemporary jurisdictions have abandoned the principle as a formal rule of evidence, applying instead the rule as “permissible inference that the jury may or may not draw.”  So far as I know, the last time falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was applied in a major case was back  in 1995 in The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James  [O.J.] Simpson, where Judge Lance Ito instructed the jury that a “witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.”)

Despite the paragraph above, this post is not about the history of common law, Latin phraseology, or the O.J. Simpson case.  Rather, it seeks to explore the world’s leading epitomization of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: the 47th POTUS.  While a heck of lot of the American public is effusively praising him for Saturday night’s pinpoint Operation Midnight Hammer bombing raid on Iran’s 3 major nuclear facilities (Isfahan, Natanz and Fordo), there are just as many Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) who are asking Why now?, What’s next?, Is there an exit strategy? and What role did/does political optics play in the attack?  

The main target of the bombing operation was the Fordo nuclear site, which is located roughly 300 feet under a mountain about 100 miles south of Tehran. It's a move that Israel has been lobbying the U.S. to carry out for quite some time, given that only the U.S. has the kind of powerful "bunker buster" bombs capable of reaching the site. Known as the GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), the bomb can only be transported by one specific U.S. warplane, the B-2 stealth bomber, due to its (i.e. the MOP’s) immense 30,000 pound weight. In his address to the nation announcing the operation, It was accompanied by the V.P, the Sec. of State and the Sec. of Defense.  Chillingly, not a single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were present . . . a clear indication that political optics were more important than strategic concerns.  He also called the operation a "spectacular military success” and claimed that Iran’s nuclear capability “has been obliterated.”  I may not know sprat about military tactics or weaponry; what I do know is that it is virtually impossible to make such a robust judgment within a matter of hours.  We have every right to be dubious.  Remember, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  

Not only did POTUS give his patented “thumbs up” to the mission; he did so without consulting Congress.  I guess he isn’t aware (or even worse, care) that there’s been a War Powers Act on the books for the past half century.  This resolution, passed by congress in 1973, limits POTUS’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. As part of our system of governmental “checks and balances,” the law aims to check the executive branch’s power when committing U.S. military forces to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress.  Already, some lawmakers in both parties are questioning the legality of the mission.  Remember back in late 2024 when IT  repeatedly claimed that if Kamala Harris to win the election, that she’s get the U.S. embroiled in a war within a year?  Well, he managed to do it within 6 months. One Republican House member, Kentuckian Thomas Massie, responded to POTUS’s announcement of the strikes in 4 words: “This is not Constitutional.”  Massie also introduced a bipartisan resolution seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran “unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran” passed by Congress.  ITs response?  “[Rep. Massie is] a lazy, grandstanding nonproductive” politician. 

In a penetrating response to the president’s action, Atlantic columnist (and former Bush 43 speechwriter) David Frum   noted: Trump did the right thing, but he did that right thing in the wrongest [sic] possible way: without Congress, without competent leadership in place to defend the United States against terrorism, and while waging a culture war at home against half the nation. Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California.

While ITs air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may have been, from a strategic point of view, both flawless and precise, it leaves one feeling “we’ve all seen this before.”  As political influencer Glee Violette noted in a recent online post: “When Kamala Harris roared on the scene, and Trump's campaign flagged, he had a ‘miraculous‘ incident, thanks to God himself. But it was only miraculous for HIM. A fan of his died. A family was destroyed. . . Still, later in the campaign there was a second such incident. Inside his own golf course. The only real result of this was that the head of Trump's Secret Service detail, who had total control of BOTH venues, and who should have been fired for gross incompetence, was instead promoted to head the entire Secret Service for Trump after his inauguration.”

In other words, when things start swirling around Felon47’s toilet bowl, he and his puppet masters do everything in their power to turn public attention away from reality. Think about it: in the week just prior to Operation Midnight Hammer, ITs reputation and polling numbers started swirling and spiraling downward. His birthday parade was shunned and shamed and he ended up looking ridiculous. Meanwhile millions upon millions of Americans gathered in places both metropolitan and rural for peaceful “NO KINGS DAY” protests. If that wasn't bad enough, two days later he got shut down at the G7, and his exit, rather than looking like a show of strength, looked like a childish tantrum.

He immediately went on the defensive, huffing that he had left the G7 because he was NEEDED back in Washington. He had something even BIGGER than the Mideast crisis to deal with. “This is not about IRAN”, he said. “Much much BIGGER. Wait until you hear about it!” And so, the next day he had contractors erect two HUGE flagpoles on the South White House lawn, thereby making helicopter take-offs and landings next to impossible. When he was reminded that by law, no American flag can be flown after dark unless it has a source of electric light, it made him even more of a laughingstock. Then he - who had run in 2024 pledging to never get America in to a war - announced that he would make a decision as to what our response would be to Israel’s air attack on Iran within 2 weeks. instead, it took him all of 2 days. I guess this means that he’s as bad at math as he is at telling the truth. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________, 

it is now more than 2 1/2 hours since I wrote the words falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  During that time I took my daily walk where I attempt to take no less than 10,000 steps.  Mission accomplished.  Upon returning, toweling down and chugging a bottle of Gator-Aid (grape is my favorite) I, like you, learned that POTUS had gone on TV to announce a “complete and total” ceasefire between Israel and Iran. I myself am fascinated - though not overly surprised - that POTUS’s announcement caught his own top officials off guard.  He really wants to have the world see him as the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1906, for having negotiated peace in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-5.  Sir, there’s a big difference: Theodore Rex worked hand-in-glove with his State Department; he wasn’t a one-man show.  The only thing you have in common is that both of you were born in New York State.

As good and hopeful as this truce sounds - and I for one pray that IT is telling something resembling the truth - I am adopting a "wait and see” attitude.  Middle East politics, especially when it involves such powerhouses as Israel and Iran, isn’t a feel-good movie with a requisite happy ending.  It isn’t some treacly comedy plotted by the likes of a Neil Simon or Mel Brooks; rather it is more akin to the convoluted, absolute absurdism of a Luigi Pirandello, Samuel Beckett or Eugène Ionesco.  While we can - and likely should - applaud the possibility of this ceasefire, we should, at the same time, be painfully aware of what diplomacy is: the process and practice of communication and negotiation between actors in the international system with the aim of achieving their goals and resolving their historic conflicts, disputes and utter lack of mutual trust. Let’s face it: DJT ain’t no T.R.; Bibi Netanyahu ain’t no Itzhak Rabin.   

The U.S. will not - and likely cannot - be totally honest and impartial brokers in the diplomatic process between Israel and Iran.  Remember: IT, in one of his first acts during his first term, formally (and loudly) withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal (a.k.a. the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”) in May, 2018.  In announcing his decision to end U.S. participation in the deal, the White House Press Office quoted him as saying “The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”  How’s that for a hyperbolic statement?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is now Tuesday morning, June 24.  I decided to wait another several hours until continuing this essay, so I could be as up-to-the-minute as possible.  Right now I feel like a sportswriter attempting to write about a tennis match that’s in progress; the height of futility. Overnight the “truce” between Israel and Iran proved to be extremely fragile. In the hours before the cease fire was to go into effect, Tehran  was pounded by the most intense and sustained airstrikes since the war began 11 days ago.  Close to sunrise, the attacks came to an end, according to four residents in different parts of the city. POTUS responded by lashing out sharply, criticizing Israel for firing on Iran “right after we made the deal” and said that the two adversaries didn’t know what they were doing.  In his late-night communication with the White House, Israeli PM Netanyahu’s office said that Iran had fired missiles after the cease-fire took effect.  In a Truth Social post, IT said that Israel “is not going to attack Iran” and that “all planes will turn around and head home.”

And so it goes.

The world waits, watches and prays.  If the cease fire holds, I will be happy to give Pumpkin Punim his props.  But . . . and it’s a big but . . . the proof of its efficacy won’t be known for decades . . . or until the I.A.E.A. can send in a team of inspectors to do a comprehensive assessment of Iran’s nuclear program and determine what it has done with all its fissionable material. 

I just hope we will be alive to sing Oseh Shalom bimromav with conviction and glee . . . 

 Copyright©2025 Kurt Franklin Stone

#1,022: "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan"

Within literally 2 minutes of word being released that Israel and Hamas had agreed to a Gaza ceasefire deal, I posted both a headline and a link to that effect on my Facebook page.  Within a couple of minutes, a fellow I’ve known down here in South Florida for more than 40 years . . . and never really discussed politics with for reasons which will quickly become obvious . . . posted a 2-word response: “Thank Trump.”  I quickly answered in 2 words “Thanks, no.” 

The fellow responded to my answer in 6 words: “He threatened them and meant it.”  Not being able to sit still, I wrote him back: “You give him far, far too much credit. It's Biden and his State Department that have been working on this for over a year.”  My friend in turn wrote “You’ve got to be kidding! A Year !!?? The only thing Hamas or Iran types fear is force. Trump made it very clear after he was elected that if these lunatics didn’t release the American hostages ( assuming they are alive) by the time he took office they would pay a terrible price. If you think they are agreeing to release them a week before he takes office is a coincidence then you don’t understand how they see the world.”

At this point, not wishing to violate what I’ve been telling my university students for nearly 30 years (Don’t beat your head against a wall, engaging in political arguments with people who will never change their mind . . . unless you’re in love with migraine headaches”), I broke off the Facebook conversation. But this was by no means the end of the “Trump-was-solely-responsible-Biden-didn’t-accomplish-Jack-your’re-full-of-it-and you’re-a-liberal-no-nothing” back and forth.

As luck would have it, one of the “Hollywood Brats” (a second generation Property Manager) who was a mainstay of our temple youth group 60 years ago, took up the cudgels for his skinny friend and wouldn’t give an inch. This Hollywood Brat is a mountain of a man . . . easily the biggest of our crowd. He looks like the epitome of a hardcore jock (well, he does play a lot of golf) but is really a very bright and literate fellow. After about 30 back-and-forth postings, both men gave up the fight. I managed to call my “Brat” friend, thanked him for his staunch efforts, told him I would be writing this blog, and promised to safeguard his anonymity (except for others of our clique who will instantly know who I am writing about).

It should come as no surprise that Felon #47 and his staunchest loyalists firmly believe that a single, conning narcissist could pull off the ceasefire almost single-handedly because he is both lethally fearsome and the world’s best negotiator. Sorry to say, but this is simply not the way diplomacy works. It is a terribly difficult artform; some have even earned advanced degrees in it, from places like Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins and the “Rolls Royce” of such institutions, the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University. Diplomatic successes do not occur overnight, which is what IT  has tried to convince the public about . . . that he did not become involved in achieving the cease fire until the day after he won the 2025 election . . . an election in which nearly 36% of the American voting public did not cast ballots.  To hear him tell it, the reason why the ceasefire took less than 2 months to achieve is because he put fear in the hearts and minds of those he faced, and is the world’s best negotiator.  Again, this is simply not how diplomacy succeeds.  

How can I put this? Well, consider an algae (which is neither bacteria nor plant but an aquatic photosynthetic organism) doubles in size in less than 24 hours. It begins life in, say Lake Michigan, as a teeny-tiny organism which cannot be seen without a microscope. Now, let’s say it takes 20 years to become visible to the naked eye. How long would it take to completely fill the lake’s 22,300 square miles? Believe it or not, if left unabated, less than 4 months. To those who pay no attention, it would seem that the lake was overtaken by this organism in a short span of time; to those who know something about microbiology, it took over 20 years. This, in a sense, is how a successful act of diplomacy works; it seems to happen overnight, but actually takes a lot of time and many starts and stops before it happens “overnight.”

Reportage on the Biden Administration’s initial efforts to patch together a ceasefire came as early as January 21st of last year. The first article published in the New York Times on January 21st, 2024 informed readers that the President and Sec. of State Anthony Blinken (who had already made several clandestine trips to the Middle East) were sending Middle East Coordinator Brett McGurk to meet with Egyptian and Qatari leaders “in hopes of making progress toward freeing captives held by Hamas.” This was likely the first time anyone outside of the White House, “Foggy Bottom” (which is the nickname for the State Department) or Capitol Hill had ever heard the name “McGurk.” He is a longtime diplomat who has served first as the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant under Presidents Obama and Trump, who kept him on. He resigned this position during the first Trump Administration after 45’s October 2019 withdrawal from Syria, which McGurk had strongly warned against doing. Biden brought him back at the beginning of his administration and created a new position for McGurk: National Security Council for the Middle East and North Africa. He is well-schooled in the politics, culture and historical difficulties of the Middle East. Over the past year, occasionally accompanied by C.I.A. director William J. Burns, he has been on the road dealing with the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Egypt and 5 of the 7 Gulf Coast Emirates (UAE, comprised of Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah and Ras al Khalman). Not universally loved or appreciated by more progressive members of the Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill (they say he doesn’t place human rights at the top of his agenda) he is widely acknowledged for knowing the politics, the people and the political psychology of Middle Eastern leaders.

Unlike Secretary McGurk’s years of diplomatic experience, the incoming administration’s Middle East representative, Steve Witkoff boasts no such credentials, but rather is a longtime (more than 4 decades) IT friend, business associate and golfing buddy. Like his pal, Witkoff and Jared Kusher’s father Charles (who, if approved will be America’s next Ambassador to France) Witkoff is a multi-billionaire property developer and investor. Like Jared, much of Witkoff’s investment capital comes from the Saudi’s and members of the U.A.E.

In addition to his business style and personal interests in the Middle East, Witkoff reportedly shares ITs brash personality. As an example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Witkoff called from Qatar to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's aides that he would be coming to Israel the following afternoon in order to finalize the ceasefire deal, but was told by aides that the Israeli leader could not be disturbed during Shabbat, the Jewish day of rest. Witkoff, who is Jewish himself, responded “in salty English”, saying that he did not care what day it was. Netanyahu obliged. Whether or not this is 100% accurate is immaterial; the contretemps is already a part of the story that will be told for generations as yet unborn . . .

In the final days of ceasefire talks it came down to a triumvirate: McGurk (representing the Biden Administration and the State Department), Witkoff (representing the incoming administration and himself) and the Qatari P.M. (and chairman of the Board of “Aspire” – the Qatari Investment Company) Sheik Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. Behind the scenes – and located on various floors of the prime minister’s palatial compound close to the old market in downtown Doha – were, among others, representatives of Egypt, Israel and Hamas. Unwilling to meet face-to-face with either the American or Israeli delegation, the people representing Hamas had negotiation “talking points” hand delivered to their rooms.

Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, Netanyahu and his far-right nationalist war cabinet were venting, accusing and threatening to leave his coalition if he took pen to paper and agreed to any ceasefire. In other words, they were holding Bibi’s feet to the fire; without their continuing membership in his coalition, his job (and very freedom) could be at stake. It is difficult to know what deal they reached in order for the Israeli P.M. to sign on to the agreement without losing his parliamentary majority . . . a tall order, to say the least. As of yesterday, far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, did resign from the cabinet and encouraged like-minded parliamentarians to do the same, which could potentially force yet another “early election.”

It is far too early to know if the ceasefire will be worth the paper (sans handshakes) it’s written on.  The first stage, if all goes according to plan (which rarely happens in the Middle East) is for a six-week cessation to hostilities.  During that time, hostages and prisoners are scheduled to be freed; the precise number on both sides has been a point of contention since day one. During the ceasefire, upwards of 600 daily trucks of food, medicines and supplies will be delivered into Gaza, as the world’s economic powerhouses begin working on how the area will be rebuilt — how much it will cost, who will do the building, in what order will structures be constructed and how to keep graft and corruption to a minimum.  All of this must be negotiated under a new American administration whose initial concern back home is the deportation of millions of illegal residents, getting a cabinet approved, and instituting a system of tariffs, not seen since the disastrous days of the Fordney-McCumber Act passed during the Harding Administration in 1922.     

Unquestionably Bibi Netanyahu has given a pre-Inauguration gift to the man who will take the presidential oath of office later today. I fear, however, that it may well turn out to be a gift that will turn out to be as stable as mercury. Yes, Bibi has given Felon #47 the ability to boast that he - and he alone - was responsible for the ceasefire. At the same time President Biden has taken a quiet, gentlemanly share of the credit. It will be up to future historians to determine precisely who was most responsible for the Gaza ceasefire and, depending on whether it holds for even the initial 6-week period, whose fingerprints are the clearest. If the ceasefire manages to work and change the face of history, let everyone take a bow; if, alas, it falls apart, all we will hear or see is the sound of silence and the pointing of fingers.

For, as either JFK, Benito Mussolini’s son-in-law Galeazzo Ciano or the Roman historian and politician Tacitus said: Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. (JKF supposedly said this after the utter failure of the Bay of Pigs fiasco); to Tacitus (56-120 CE) goes the original: Iniquum est hoc de bello; victoria ab omnibus petitur, non uni soli,” namely, “This is an unfair thing about war: victory is claimed by all, failure to one alone.”

 Let us pray it will a victory for the many. 

Copyright©2025 Kurt Franklin Stone

#1,017: Farewell, Dr. al-Assad?

The past 48 hours have marked a tectonic shift in the political plates and fates of the Middle East. The fall of Damascus at the hands of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS: Arabic for either “Organization for the Liberation of the Levant” or “Levant Liberation Committee”) and the fleeing of murderous Syrian President Bashir al-Assad and his family to Moscow, have left tens of million in the region - and indeed, around the world - cheering and fearing the future. Already, thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugees are making the trek back to their homeland from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the U.K. and Germany  . . . to name but 4 countries where they have been living in exile.

                      Abu Muhammad al-Jolani

At this early juncture, it would appear that the biggest losers are Iran and Russia, who have been largely responsible for supplying the Assad regime with arms and weaponry. It is, of course, far too early to say with any certainty what the toppling of Dr. al-Assad (he’s a board-certified ophthalmologist who did his post-graduate training at London’s Western Eye Hospital) will have on the future of the country he and his father ruled with an iron fist for more than half a century. Abu Muhammad al-Julani is the nom de guerre of the leader of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham, which eventually toppled al-Assad and forced him to flee.  As of today, al-Jolani is the titular Syrian Prime Minister. Born Ahmed Hussein al-Shar'a in 1982, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to a family whose historic roots were the Golan Heights (hence the nisba* “al-Julani” [roughly translated as “the Golanite”]), his life over the past two decades has been a roadmap of Islamist militancy in Iraq and Syria. He battled U.S. forces in Iraq and was jailed by the Americans for several years. He rose through the ranks of the group then known as the Islamic State of Iraq, or ISI, and then with help from ISI’s successor, ISIS, Jolani founded an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, which has been designated a terrorist by the United States since 2013.  

(* nisba: نسبة “attribution” . . . an adjectival surname indicating the person's place of origin, ancestral tribe, or ancestry, used at the end of the name).

In 2021, al-Jolani (who, since this past Thursday has dropped his nom de guerre in favor of his birth name) emerged from the shadows and sat down for his first interview with Frontline correspondent Martin Smith. Much was to be learned:

Jolani's journey as a jihadist began in Iraq, linked to al-Qaeda through the Islamic State (IS) group's precursor - al-Qaeda in Iraq and, later, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). After the 2003 US-led invasion, he joined other foreign fighters in Iraq and, in 2005, was imprisoned at Camp Bucca, a forward operating base that housed a theater internment facility maintained by the United States military in the vicinity of Umm Qasr, in extreme southeastern Iraq, where he enhanced his jihadist affiliations and later on was introduced to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the quiet scholar who would later go on to lead IS.

In 2011, Baghdadi sent Jolani to Syria with funding to establish the al-Nusra Front, a covert faction tied to ISI. By 2012, al-Nusra had become a prominent Syrian fighting force, hiding its IS and al-Qaeda ties. Tensions arose in 2013 when Baghdadi's group in Iraq unilaterally declared the merger of the two groups (ISI and al-Nusra), declaring the creation of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), and publicly revealing for the first time the links between them. Jolani resisted, as he wanted to distance his group from ISI's violent tactics, thus leading to a split. To get out of that sticky situation, Jolani pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, making the al-Nusra Front its Syrian branch.

From the start, he prioritized winning Syrian support, distancing himself from IS's brutality and emphasizing a more pragmatic approach to jihad. Despite the public split from al-Qaeda and name changes, HTS continued to be designated by the UN, US, UK and other countries as a terrorist organization, and the US maintained a $10m reward for information about Jolani's whereabouts. Western powers considered the break-up to be a façade.

Under Jolani, HTS became the dominant force in Idlib, north-west Syria's largest rebel stronghold, and home to about four million people, many of whom were displaced from other Syrian provinces. To address concerns about a militant group governing the area, HTS established a civilian front, the so-called "Syrian Salvation Government" (SG) in 2017 as its political and administrative arm. The SG functioned like a state, with a prime minister, ministries and local departments overseeing sectors such as education, health, taxes and reconstruction, while maintaining a religious council guided by Sharia, or Islamic law.  Although the new government did not mandate the wearing of the hajib (head-covering) for women, many women in the province began donning them in public. Since the beginning of 2024, a former engineer, Muhammed al-Bashir was the chief administrator of the SG.

                                    Interim Syrian P.M. al-Bashir

Earlier today (Tuesday, Dec. 11)  al-Bashir has been appointed post-Assad Syria’s interim prime minister.  The decision came after Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader met with the outgoing Syrian Prime Minister and Vice President Faisal Mekdad to discuss a transitional government just yesterday.  "The general command has tasked us with running the transitional government until 1 March," Bashir said on Tuesday, according to state media.  

So what happens next? Anyone got a crystal ball they truly trust? al-Assad’s downfall evokes memories of the 2011 uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen, each of which brought about either civil war or authoritarian rule. Global responses, both rhetorical and real, are pretty much what one would expect: we are truly glad the Assad regime is on history’s ash-heap, pray that the rebels will turn their spears into pruning hooks, but beyond that, who knows?

In Washington, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East Daniel Shapiro said, “No one should shed any tears over the end of the Assad regime.” He said that the U.S. would maintain a presence in Eastern Syria “to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS,” and would take all necessary measures to defend its forces in the area.

IT proclaimed on his social media site that the United States should stay out of Syria: “THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT,” he declared in his ALL CAPS style.

Turkey: Hakan Fidan, the Turkish foreign minister said, “Syria has reached a stage where the Syrian people will shape the future of their own country. Today there is hope.” Turkey is obvious glad that Assad is gone; perhaps now Turkey can see the more than 3 million Syrians living within their borders return home.

France: President Emmanuel Macron wrote that “the barbaric state has fallen . . . In this moment of uncertainty, I send them my wishes for peace, freedom and unity. France will remain committed to the security of all in the Middle East.”

Iran: Although the country has long been among Dr. Assad’s staunchest supporters, its foreign ministry wrote in a post that “determining Syria’s future and making decisions about its destiny are solely the responsibility of the Syrian people, without any destructive interference or external imposition.”

Israel: P.M. Netanyahu took a victory lap, proclaiming that Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon had caused a “chain reaction”  that helped precipitate the collapse of the Assad regime, which he called “ . . . a key cell in Iran’s axis.  This [is] the direct result of the blows we dealt Iran and Hezbollah.” Earlier today, Israel said that it had destroyed Syria’s navy in overnight airstrikes, as it continued to pound targets in Syria despite warnings that its operations there could ignite new conflict and jeopardize the transition of power to an interim government.

Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said that the Israeli military had “destroyed Syria’s navy overnight, and with great success.” His remarks appeared to confirm Israel’s responsibility for the destruction documented in the Syrian port city of Latakia, where photos showed the smoldering remains of ships sunk at their dock.

Britain: “It’s too early to remove Syrian rebels from the terror list. 

In boning up on, and familiarizing myself with, Ahmed Hussein al-Shara’a, I find myself convinced of 3 things:

1. He is sharp as a tack;

2. He possesses the inscrutability of the truly unknowable;

3. He is an utter pragmatist.

   This last point could be, when all is said and done, the most important and telling of all. History teaches that once the shooting stops, leaders of successful rebellions and/or revolutions are frequently failures when it comes to governing. Take the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) as an early example; they were uncanny guerilla fighters who, though totally unskilled as warriors and going up against what was perhaps the very first professional army in the history of the world (the Greco-Assyrians of King Antiochus Epiphanes) they managed to pull off a miraculous victory. However, when it came to leading a state at peace, they were utter failures at governance and had to ‘invite in” a group to help them (the Romans), who would eventually be responsible for destroying all they had created. They lacked both vision and an understanding of pragmatism.

Ahmed Hussein al-Shara’a appears to be a pragmatist. Once he and HTS conquered Idlib, he and his lieutenants removed their headpieces, trimmed their beards, put on western clothing and began creating a civil government. They also jettisoned their early sponsors’ notion of worldwide jihad and began proclaiming themselves to be interested in remaking Syria. Period.  Just how much religious fanaticism will be on display in the new Syria is anyone’s guess; however, there is always their first test case in Idlib. There, they created a civil administration which, if not favorable to all (I mean, who likes paying increased taxes?), at least they had the support of enough people to not have the problem of counter-revolution hounding them every hour of the day. And within hours of getting Dr. al-Assad to flee, began the process of governmental transition which, as we in the U.S. have learned of late, is not always a given.

What tomorrow will bring to Syria and the rest of the Middle East is anyone’s guess.  But at least for now, Iran and Russia seem to have lost a supportive conduit, which is a good start.  Let’s hope that Tevya’s rabbi’s blessing for the Tzar will be the same for Dr. al-Assad . . . that “G-d bless and keep him . . . far away from us.”

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone