The 5 greatest risks for 2016

By J.F. Mezo

The 5 greatest risks for 2016 are global in every possible sense. They are not only distributed in different continents and regions of the world but their effects will be far reaching, impacting not only other countries and continents but also the global economy. Although said risks are diverse in nature, nationalism and the lack of international consensus will define the undertone of the upcoming year.

Photo by GotCredit: www.gotcredit.com

Political instability in Europe:

Since the financial crisis in 2008, Europe and especially the European Union have encountered difficulties not only of the financial but also of the political variety. Weak incumbents, competing interests, and the rise of nationalistic sentiments pushed the EU to the point where its structural weaknesses almost resulted in serious conflicts. The Greek crisis, the effects of Russian sanctions on certain EU members, and now the refugee crisis have all contributed to the growing internal tensions, and although in 2016 we can expect an improvement in the economic performance and investment climate of the region, the political dimension can make it difficult for businesses to operate within the EU.

What to be on the lookout for:

-       Weak popular support of the ruling party and its policies

-       Nationalistic policies, heightened sense of national identity

-       Conflicts of interest amongst EU members

The Refugee Crisis in Europe:

In 2015, Europe has seen a staggering number of refugees flowing into the continent, most of them coming from the war-torn regions of Africa and the Middle East. As the second half of 2015 clearly demonstrated, Europe was not and is still not ready to cope with the situation, and as long as a comprehensive framework is not negotiated, no meaningful progress can be expected. The refugee crisis can also become a risk to businesses operating in the region as it leads to internal political and social tensions, tensions between the locals and the immigrants, and interstate conflict (e.g. the Croatian-Hungarian hostility).

What to be on the lookout for:

-       Social and political unrest

-       Interstate tensions

-       Lack of cooperation

-       Terrorism?

ISIS:

Although the expansion of the Islamic State has slowed down considerably recently, ISIS has gained strong foothold in the Middle East. In spite of the joint efforts of local groups, European countries and the US, the rule of ISIS is far from over in the region. Also troubling is the fact that in order to prevent disillusioned followers from leaving the organization, ISIS is willing to adopt an increasingly hostile and aggressive ideology. As the rape of all non-Muslim women is now deemed legal and even encouraged by ISIS, female employees might be in increased danger in the Middle East. In 2016, the business world will need to monitor the situation closely and stand ready to withdraw from the region in order to protect their interests and employees.

What to be on the lookout for:

-       Violence and armed conflicts

-       Potential difficulties maintaining supply chains

-       Female employees in danger

Civil war in Syria:

The ongoing civil war in Syria will be amongst the top risks of 2016 as the disastrous political situation and the devastating armed clashes in the region will not only do further damage to the Syrian economy but will also set other, global risks into motion. One of them is the refugee crisis in Europe, as most of the refugees flowing into the continent have been arriving from Syria and its neighbouring territories. On the other hand, it can also deepen the Russia-West divide, as Russian arms export and military assistance to Syria have been amongst the most fiercely debated topics in the United Nations recently. The United States has been particularly unhappy with the Russian decision to intervene, and now that the Russian campaign in Syria started, we can expect a further cooling of US-Russian relations.

What to be on the lookout for:

-       Unfavourable business climate in Syria and between Russia and the West

-       Violence and armed clashes

-       Radical groups and ideas

South and East China Sea Armed Confrontation:

China’s increasingly aggressive policies have now pushed the Pacific region to the brink of a possibly multilateral conflict. In the South China Sea, China has warned other claimants that if they were to drill for oil in the disputed areas, they can expect Chinese retaliation. In the East China Sea, territorial debate over the Senkaku islands persists, as neither Japan, nor China is ready to compromise. The threat of escalation is present in both cases and it can lead to a disruption of trade and supply chains in the region in 2016.

What to be on the lookout for:

-       Escalation of interstate conflicts in the region

-       Possible US involvement through defence treaties (Japan, Manila)

-       Trade and supply chains disruptions

Risks to Global Stability in 2016

By Adrienn Keszei - Oct 12, 2015

 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=176293 )

New York — As 2016 approaches, it is important to keep close watch of the political and economic risks worldwide to evaluate their potential global impact. Although it is difficult to precisely assess the consequences of single events in terms of global stability, the following list explains some of the major risks for the following year(s):

-          The Russian intervention in Syria may have wide-ranging global consequences for the next year. Although a possible clash with the U.S. over their different strategies to solve the Syrian civil war is a low probability risk, if it happens, the conflict will have high risk implications for global stability. While Putin’s decision to help the Syrian government defeat the militant groups may produce some positive results in the short term, it is possible that the country will not be able to fully control the extent of its involvement in the civil war. It is possible that the following events will require a deeper involvement from the Russian military, which could alienate the Russian public from Putin. Depending on how long and how deep Putin’s involvement in the civil war will be, it may have serious political consequences for Putin’s regime in the long term.

-          The Paris Climate Conference in December 2015 may have significant global implications for the following years. As the 190 nations will meet, their differing views are likely to cause a major falling out between the industrialized and the emerging markets. Although numerous countries have previously committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to some extent, more serious efforts must be made to limit the emerging threat of the greenhouse effect. However, even if the developed countries could agree to significantly change their energy policies, poor states do not have the financial means to invest in clean technology. They would expect rich countries to provide the funding for them to adapt their economy and infrastructure to the new global energy policies. Even if an agreement is reached regarding the environmental issues, cooperation between the participating states will be problematic.

-          The stagnation of the Eurozone is likely to remain a major problem for the next year. Ever since the global financial crisis of 2007-08, the economy of the European Union has been unable to return to its previous growth-path. The present migrant crisis will further reduce the prospects of major GDP growth for 2016, as most of the developed countries in the bloc will have to focus on restructuring their immigration policies and resolving short-term issues related to the huge influx of migrants. Although a turnaround is not out of the picture, the current GDP growth path of the EU is quite worrying, and raises questions in terms of its ability to sustain the bloc and lift the Eurozone from stagnation.

-          Although at first glance water scarcity may seem like an isolated issue only influencing specific countries and regions, it is becoming a global phenomenon. Poor water management is causing severe damages to the environment in the Middle East, Africa, and in parts of Asia as well. Australia is under extreme pressure due to the growing drought, and other developed countries are threatened as well—California in the U.S. has been especially challenged by water shortage. Furthermore, it is also threatening business and industry interests; the extractive industry, agribusiness or the manufacturing sector all heavily rely on water. The regulatory risks due to the new policies will further aggravate the investment risk, causing tremendous impacts for the global economy. In addition, geopolitical tensions are also expected to cause disputes over water resources in many regions.

-          The recent developments in the conflict between the government forces and the militant Kurdish PKK group are raising the risk of a Turkish civil war. Militant attacks on the Turkish military and the serious nationalist demonstrations have shown that the current climate of political polarization might lead to open conflict between the two sides. Although at this point it may be a moderate risk only, in case of another civil war ensues, it is unknown how serious the conflict could become. It may happen that military intervention from other countries will be necessary. As civil wars in the neighboring region have been damaging for global stability, a conflict in Turkey would certainly upset world politics even more.

Although some of the risks discussed above may have a low probability at present, it is crucial to carefully consider all the potential risks for the following years, so that we can take evasive action early on. Looking at risks from different perspectives may always change the order of priority, however, decision makers must realize that all threats are concurrently present and all of them need to be mitigated to ensure global stability.

5 greatest risks to global stability looming ahead in 2016

By Anya Degtyarenko 

NEW YORK, Oct. 12 — With the end of the Cold War, the world entered the new era: multiple regional economic and political powers are about to reshape the world order. The startling trends had been much in evidence during 2015: complete breakdown in relations between the US and Russia with Putin’s aggressiveness; an escalating international crisis in the Middle East, a shattering economic and social state of the European Union, and the fearful economic effect of Chinese slowdown. While the world doesn’t seem close to “stable” today, the global stability implies the existing political status quo, allowing moderate and predictable international economic and social progress. Geopolitical factors that threaten the predictable order are, therefore, the risks causing global instability. Five of these top risks will be prominent in 2016. 

1. European Instability

European integrity and reputation of stability will continue to be challenged in 2016.  Eurozone economic weakness, coupled with the migration crisis and following political repercussions will be hitting European Union in its weak spots. The inflation rate has fallen again in 3rd quarter of 2015, to just 0.3 percent, and the unemployment rate is stuck at 11.5 percent — and prospects for 2016 might be worse. Economic weakness makes the EU reluctant to hurt Moscow; cutting it off from the global financial system would strike the EU too. Following the economic fragility, “Brexit”, the possibility of Britain quitting the EU, is the next risk sign of  European fragmenting. Economic stagnation and lack of political cooperation produced infirm responses to the Ukraine, Iraqi and Syrian crises. The bottom line of  the list is a migration crisis with no obvious solution. Migrant inflow from the African continent, dictated by demography and economic gaps, is going to increase and the EU must develop a common approach or risk further political and social challenges to its unity. 

2. China

While the world is focused on the situation in Middle East, ISIS and Putin, the problem with China will approach shortly. The growth targets for 2016 keep lowering, and it will affect China’s trade partners at first place. Commodities dependent countries booming on exports to China, like Japan, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, will continue to suffer, raising the risk of political unrest in the most unstable of them. GDP in the US and already the struggling and the Eurozone will decline. While the world is anticipating China’s economic slowdown, the Chinese Communist Party seeks to demonstrate its political and military power. It is building up its influence in the South Sea and closed the air space in Eastern China, which the US does not recognize. Its actions in Syria pose a major threat to the US-allies in the Middle East. Chinese hackers are believed to pose threat to the US cyber security. On top of the economic interdependence between the US and China, the political tension between powers will highly increase. 


3. The Middle East 

The expansion of the Islamic State, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran, will continue to complicate the situation in the Middle East. ISIS ideology will continue to spread out, setting up new units and disrupting the status quo power of the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is unresolved, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon will promote violent  clashes with Israel. With the US-Iran nuclear deal and impending lifting of sanctions, the struggle for dominance between Iran and Saudis will feed violent proxy wars in the region like those underway in Syria and Yemen. The threat of the Assad regime collapse and his successor will be on the agenda of 2016. With the US scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2016, there is a risk of the collapse of Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan into semi-failed states. Some of these conflicts may yield an actual oil supply disruption, as in 1973, 1979, and 1990, with the results reflected in risking prices. Weakened economies and civil wars in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, will turn millions of people into refugees and continue to destabilize Europe economically and socially. Furthermore, lasting hopelessness and growing unemployment will produce more anti-western jihadists among Arab Youth who will find their way to stage terrorist attacks in the US, Europe or Russia. 



4. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia will contribute to global instability and already existing turmoil in the Middle East. Its importance as an oil exporting nation has made economic interdependence with the West inevitable, That, in turn, set up strong political and military relationships that at times have been a source of tension for both sides that will be tested in 2016. Saudi Arabia is facing multiple risks for its economy, succession and regional stability. With the trend favoring continued low oil prices, the Saudi budget deficit will increase, which was already $100 billion in 2015. This will produce risks for the Kingdom’s credit rating, capital outflows and negative responses on international markets. As the country will be close to running out of its financial and oil reserves, the region will be more destabilized. Besides this tight economic situation, the US-Iran nuclear deal shuttered the 70 year history of the American and Saudi relationships of the status quo powers. Russia’s dramatic intervention to the balance of power  in the Middle East will signal that the US is not responsible for defending its friends and allies anymore. With ongoing succession conspiracy inside the House of Saud, that  will leave the Saudis more vulnerable than ever, and cause more friction in the relations with Iran.  


5. Russia 

Russia is a tricky factor when calculating global destabilization factors in 2016. Against the backdrop of the weak Eurozone, the economic sanctions imposed after Crimea were not enough to mortally weaken Russia. Arguably, they made Putin even more aggressive and revisionist. As the Russian economy tumbles, Putin will increase its anti-Western economic policy, targeting the companies and investors inside of Russia. Its nuclear capability and intend on territorial and political expansion, especially in the region of the US-allies, continues to pose threat to the security of Western world and overall, global stability. With the Ukraine left in the “frozen conflict” state, Putin moved his attention to Syria. Putin’s intervention in Syria intends to insert Russia as a rival to the US-superpower role in the regional conflict. That clearly had implications for further extension beyond the region. Russia will continue its provocative behavior against NATO states (e.g. violating Turkey air space).  Further, China uniting with Russia against ISIS and US-backed allies will pose great risk of expelling NATO as a power organization and eventually shifting the US influence in the region. Failure to defend the NATO ally from Russia-China coalition will disrupt the whole balance of power and the attempt of the US to return to its primary power in the region will trigger the World War III. 

UN Speech and Syria tragedy: how does Putin visit affect the US-Russia troubling relationship?

Jewel Samand/Getty Images 

By Anya Degtyarenko

NEW YORK, Sept. 27 — Russian President Vladimir Putin’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday will be his first such appearance since 2005. Putin’s aides have billed the speech as a bold proposal that could provide a way out of the Syrian crisis. In fact, by changing to topic of conversation from Ukraine to Syria, Putin the would-be peacemaker sees “a golden opportunity,” as New York Times noted last week, to serve his strategic goals.

For the most of the world, Syria is a scene of tragedy. Russia’s perspective is unique, however, as one of the few major powers (Iran being the other) that supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The US and others have consistently rejected the notion that support for Assad is the best way to counter the rise of the bloody fanatics of the Islamic State (ISIS). Putin, we can assume, will insist on disagreeing at the UN this week.

The details of Putin’s address remain secret but the goal of breaking the two-year isolation of Russia appeared to be well on the way to being achieved. On Thursday, President Barack Obama agreed to what the White House said were "repeated requests" for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. The two leaders were reported to have their formal meeting on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly on Monday.

“Until the beginning of the Russian operation in Syria, the US-Russia relationship looked like chess game, in which one player does not pay attention to the board in general (USA), and the other party is constantly moving and hustling to draw attention to yourself, ” said Vasily Gatov, Senior Fellow of USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy. He added that while Syria is an important argument in the equation, this is not exactly a transformative attention and American policy is not going to change.”

Igor Mintusov, Russian political consultant and professional manager of election campaigns, agreed.“For Putin, the Syria issue is the reason to meet with Obama while for Obama, it is the reason to attend the meeting.”

Coincide general consensus exists among Russian affairs experts that no smooth way forward exists for US-Russia relations in spite of Putin’s recent diplomatic efforts. Award-winning journalist and Russian affairs analyst Andrew Nagorski considers that Putin's speech at the UN or his meeting with Obama won’t change anything fundamentally in the US-Russia relationship: “It's a transparent attempt by Putin to try to demonstrate that Russia still counts on the world scene. His country and its citizens are paying the price for those destructive policies.” Nagorski remarked the irony of that Putin “had many chances early in his rule to work with the West and the rest of the world to promote an agenda that would be a win-win situation.” And regardless of the UN speech, “those are all blown chances now.”

The prominent Russian political consultant Evgeny Minchenko claimed that “we find ourselves in a situation of the New Cold War, which is not easy to get out.” Evgeny pointed out that the talks are less likely to improve the relationships: “Americans pay much more attention to overthrow Assad. So the role of Putin, who protects the illegitimate government of Syria, can only be seen as  negative.” He also proposed that while Obama’s mandate is almost over, Putin is going to run for another term in 2018 and probably stay until 2024. Mark Galeotti, an expert in transnational crime and Russian security affairs, is skeptical about progress between Putin and Obama. “Moscow will need to make some substantive moves over the Donbas (Eastern Ukraine) before there can be any greater reward,” Mark explained that out of the talks with Washington. He expected Putin to push but for Obama to hold the line because “after all, it rankles that at present the Americans are treating Moscow as even more of a pariah than Tehran.”

Meanwhile, far from the halls of power, communities of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians worldwide are waiting for the outcome of Putin’s speech. In New York, “A Stand Up To Putin at the UN” rally got under way at 10 a.m. on Sunday, the morning before the speech. Another rally was to take place when Putin starts his speech on Monday. Vera Golubkova, who attended the Sunday protest, said: “For me it is first of all an act of solidarity with Ukrainians. I was born and raised in Russia. There is a lot of tension not just between Russian and Ukraine, but also between Russian and Ukrainian communities in the US. It is important for me to let local Ukrainians know that not all Russians have lost their minds.”

Considering the described troubling factors in the history of US-Russia relations, the tension is evident. Expert opinion hints towards a quite negative perspective of the relations. The opinion of Russian and Eastern European immigrants, however, does not represent the opinion of Russian citizens, who hope to benefit from Putin’s diplomacy. The war against ISIS is the point where US and Russian interests intersect and explain the willingness of Washington to understand Putin’s decisions. The negotiations on Syria cannot, however, compromise Putin’s intervention in Ukraine. The situation is likely to remain painful and “frozen” until time and, possibly, the results of the upcoming presidential elections in both countries push some major shift towards progress.

Did Everything Just Get Worse?

By Adrienn Keszei

I was fourteen years old, sitting in the tv room of our high school dorm in Hungary, watching a television show with my roommates, when someone rushed into the room and changed the channel to see the news. Her sister, she said with trepidation, lived in New York and worked in the financial district. None of what she was saying made any sense—until we saw what was on the screen.

Exactly fourteen years after the attacks of September 11, 2001,  I found myself in Manhattan looking at the Tribute of Light from Brooklyn Bridge Park, and contemplating what – if anything - we have achieved in almost one and a half decade. How much closer did we get to a world where such things simply could not happen? Unfortunately, not much at all.

Washington - Pentagon Memorial 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=203186 )

9/11 was an extraordinary catalyst that started the long War on Terror. A lot has happened since 2001. The U.S. waged war on Islamist terrorist organizations and regimes supporting them, launched a war on Iraq based on erroneous intelligence, then the suffered international embarrassment when the inhumane treatment of detainees was unveiled and Saddam Hussein turned out to have no weapons of mass destruction after all. Of course, Osama bin Laden was killed, and in the midst of all this, following a US withdrawal from Iraq, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) was “born’ into the political vacuum—a new enemy gaining more territory, power and followers every day. In many ways, the situation got worse than it was before, with the U.S. having to deal with a more dangerous and much more brutal organization than al-Qaeda ever was, while the government cannot seem to figure out an effective strategy to eliminate this new enemy. Furthermore, as a result of the war in Syria, which has been indirectly enabled by the U.S. intervention in Iraq, tens of thousands of people are migrating to Europe from the Middle East, seeking a better future. Among them, hidden safely in all the chaos, could be people sent by ISIS or other terrorist organizations, posing as migrants. Threats and security risks were ignored once before and with devastating consequences. Now, weary as the American public may be of the topic, the U.S. government must find a way to eliminate threats in the Middle East and minimize the risk of terrorist activity in Europe.

Many abroad now think that waging an extremely aggressive war on the countries associated with terrorist organizations was a mistake. They also believe that the U.S. overemphasized 9/11 while civil wars, famine, or constantly deteriorating hygiene and health conditions across the globe are contributing to much larger death tolls every day. Others argue that the leadership’s hostility toward all of Islam contributed to the ever-growing popularity of new jihadist groups. These are strong opinions, which seem quite insensitive at first, but a more detached perspective might just be what America needs in order to find a better strategy to eliminate the source instead of fighting a futile war against people on the ground.

It is hard to understand how the US government, with all the resources at its command, cannot figure out a better strategy to stop Islamist militant groups. After 9/11, most of the attention was focused on al-Qaeda, and as much as people wished for retribution, weakening al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden did not make the world much safer, nor did it heal the wounds caused by 9/11. Soon after al-Qaeda was weak enough to consider it less of a threat, a rival Islamist group appeared, known as the Islamic State. Their growing power and brutality forced thousands of people to leave their home countries.

These people are seeking a safe, better future—and it is the responsibility of the destination countries to assist them in any way possible to realize this wish. But migrants are arriving in large numbers, which means it will be difficult to effectively integrate them into society for a while as they will probably create their own isolated societies. This environment is unfortunately perfect for recruiting people to follow jihadist groups. Granted, the absolute majority of migrants are innocent people who deserve a better life. Nevertheless, it would be awfully naive to think that terrorist groups—that have been systematically recruiting people from all over the world for years now—would not take advantage of the chaos and the huge, uncontrolled mass migration. Some suspicious individuals have already been identified in several European countries, but chances are that due to the overwhelming crowds of migrants and refugees, most threats will remain undetected.

New York - U.S. Coast Guards Maritime Safety and Security Teams 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=2714)

To prevent such an outcome, the U.S. should offer help to Europe to ensure that migrants are registered legally and effectively; not only to ensure global security, but also to create a safer future for America. The Bush administration ignored several clear warnings before 9/11. Who is to say that the present administration will not make a mistake again, ignoring the minor threats in Europe, which may only become greater in time. So, as I was sitting on a bench, looking at the blue lights relentlessly pointing towards the sky, I was contemplating the past fourteen years, and realized that we must very quickly learn how to prevent threats in time; otherwise, we will find ourselves fighting futile wars for decades, only creating more enemies and more tragedies in the process.

Assad is Still in Power (O yea....and he has killed 4,000 of his own people)

Jordan's King Abdullah told the BBC yesterday that if he were Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he would step down as president. 'I would step down and make sure whoever comes behind me has the ability to change the status-quo that we’re seeing.' On Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria and called on its government to stop the violence against protesters. The League said that it will impose economic and political sanctions on the Syrian government and will also meet with opposition leaders in the country. They are also expected to make a similar condemnation this week, along with most Western leaders.

The White House added yesterday that President Assad was increasingly isolated, and said that he had lost his legitimacy to lead. 'It is clear that the Assad regime is continuing to be isolated, that the political pressure on them is building,' said White House spokesperson Josh Earnest.

40 Syrians were reported to have been killed in fighting yesterday between forces loyal to President Assad and anti-government forces.

This all appears to be productive, but is in fact futile. Assad knows that Russia and China will never back similar measures that they did against Libya and he knows that international sanctions can only go so far. The conflict in Libya helped secure, not deter Assad’s reign and condemned four thousand activists to death. With the Euro crisis, 2012 US elections, the wider Arab Spring, Russia and China’s veto and Iran’s nuclear program, world leaders have their plates full and don’t want and in some cases can’t handle and even afford another issue to deal with. As long Assad keeps this now, civil war in his country as a domestic conflict and affair and not let the troubles in his country escalate beyond his boarders, it is pretty clear he will be the Syrian President this time next year – especially if the West has nothing to with it. They can just congratulate each other about a successful Libyan mission.

-Roy.

Security Council Resolutions WILL NOT Resolve Anything Regarding Syria

Yesterday, a European-drafted United Nations Security Council resolution threatening sanctions against the Syrian regime failed to pass, after Russia and China used their veto to ensure its failure. The resolution was tabled because of the ongoing killing by the Syrian regime of peaceful protesters demanding reform. More than 2,700 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising against the dictatorial rule of Assad began in mid-April. The vote in the UNSC was 9-2, with Russia and China opposed, and India, South Africa, Brazil and Lebanon abstaining.

In a response to the UNSC tabling (and not passing) this resolution, the Jerusalem Post reported that President Assad told the Turkish Foreign Minister:

"If a crazy measure is taken (a NATO attack) against Damascus, I will need not more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv. All these events will happen in three hours, and in the following three hours, Iran will attack the US warships in the Persian Gulf and the US and European interests will be targeted simultaneously," Assad said, according to FARS."

This post isn't commenting on how ridiculous it is that Assad can and is continuing to kill his own people in order to hold on to his Presidency. Nor is this post commenting on the fact that Russia and China think this does not require international condemnation. However, I understand why they are blocking this ultimately powerless resolution. It is due to their joint principle of national sovereignty, their shared low priority of promoting human rights and the fact that, if they support the toppling of a dictator, maybe, their own citizens may feel that they too can ask for more openness and transparency in their own countries.

This post is commenting on how far President Assad will go to keep power and how many regional factions, conflicts and ultimately, lives, he feels he could and would exploit as well as allow to be lost in the process.

Assad's comments are ultimately pointless as the international community right now is sitting on their hands, still congratulating each other on "liberating" Libya. They will exacerbate local tensions, force Israel to respond (because that is what Israel does best, respond with force to threats) and add international complications to a domestic, political situation.

No country has the right to publically threaten other states. Assad, does not only threaten his neighbors in his statement, but Europe and American too. How can the international community disregard these threats? Israel is threatened all the time. So how is this different?

President Assad has already proven that he will go to extraordinary lengths domestically to keep his presidency. And, as far as he is concerned, it has worked fine: He is still the Leader of Syria. Hence, anyone who thinks that he will not take this conflict out of Syria and inflict these troubles on his neighbors (Israel and Turkey) are mistaken. Why would he not? Assad has attacked Israel before, he supports the terror organizations, such as Hamas which attacks Israel often and he talks about attacking Israel again and killing Israelis all the time! We have seen what he will do to his own people. Why wouldn't he do the same, if not worse to his sworn enemies – Israel?

The situation looks bleak for the Syrian people as well as the wider region. The International Community needs to realize that:

1. This situation has little to do with international sovereignty (Russia and China). President Bashar al-Assad is a dictator not a leader.
2. Sanctions and resolutions will do nothing to resolve the situation, they will just further exacerbate it.
3. President Bashar al-Assad doesn’t care anymore about anything apart from keeping his reign. He will not stop because UN Security Council asks him to so.

The one positive that can come from this situation is that Turkey, Israel and other neighboring states can find a common ground to stop this situation from unfolding around them, if they haven’t started to do so already (Mosad is pretty quick off its feet). Hence, fixing other regional tensions.

I know I haven't suggested an alternative course of action, nor is what I am saying certain to happen. But I do know that two things are for certain: the international community’s current course of action is not working and if Assad is to fall he will fall causing as much damage as he possibly can. This is because he would have NOTHING to loose and EVERYTHING to gain. President Assad has already proven that this fall won’t take place without a fight, it is now up to the international community to decide what type of fight this is and hence, who the winner is. Or they can sit on their hands a little longer and talk about Libya.

- Roy