Arab governments deserve to be disbelieved even when they tell the truth (if they tell the truth). Ghazi Kan`an: let the political exploitation (by US and Syria) begin. I have of course been thinking about this "suicide" and the question of suicide in general in Arab contemporary history. It is not something common in the history of the region, partly because of strong religious condemnation (but people in Muslim countries still commit and attempt suicide because--you see--unlike what you have been told, Muslims don't do all what they are told to do by their religion, just like members of other religions, and partly because Arab officials are just not in the habit of assuming responsibility for their actions. In fact, suicide in also not common among US officials too, if you think about it. Has there been one high ranking cabinet member who ever committed suicide in US history? To be sure, Nasser offered his resignation after the 1967 defeat, but it only lasted for a few days. The first registered political suicide in contemporary Arab history is probably in Iraq, in military ranks in the 1930s. In Syria, this is the 3rd known one: `Abdul-Karim Al-Jundi killed himself in 1969, and former prime minister Mahmud Az-Zu`bi killed himself in 2000, and now this. I listened again to the New TV report from two days ago that presumably triggered this (Syrian foreign minister Faruq Ash-Shar` so insinuated when he blamed "some media"), looking for clues. Now Lebanese media have been airing reports about Kan`an and about Ghazalah and about Shawkat among others for several months now, and some (especially in Ash-Shira` magazine, which used to be a tool for Syrian intelligence before being bought off by Rafiq Hariri), so what was special about this report in particular? I reported on the New TV report, and commented on it yesterday. But here is my theory. Since it is unlikely that New TV received its information from the Mehlis team (Mehlis or his aides had not leaked to New TV before), and given that the New TV is known for a strong pro-Arab and anti-US domination stance, I would rule out Mehlis as the source of the information on Kan`an's appearance before the team. There must have been some truth to the report to cause Kan`an to flip like that, based on what we are seeing. But I also speculate that the source was somebody in Syria itself, and that this was intended to push Kan`an, to "burn him" and probably to cause him to commit suicide. Maybe he saw what was coming his way when he heard the details and the figures that were contained in the report. In the absence of further information about intrigue within the highest ranks of the Syrian government--and I don't talk to cab drivers like American correspondents in the Middle East, and do not ask Michael Young questions about analysis of the Middle East--we have very little to rely on. The New TV read that "report" with such confidence, and without any of the usual qualifying language, that it made it look like they really are quite certain of its reliability and veracity. So somebody in the Syrian government must have been the source of that report. You noticed today that in the unusual and very emotional statement read by Walid Jumblat he made a reference to Kan`an's "betrayal by the closest people to him." He did not elaborate further. This left us with more questions than answers. Or was he referring to the betrayal by Rustum Ghazalah who used to be a subordinate of Kan`an? I also noticed clear grammatical mistakes, and this from a man who has a degree in Arabic literature. Was that a clue? It was also noteworthy how he phrased his last sentence (so badly translated by the Daily Star, but this is my translation): "I think that this may be the last statement that I can make". Why did he say "can make" and why "I think". Why the uncertainly if he decided to kill himself? And the statement by Kan`an to Voice of Lebanon radio station may have had some clues. The analysis given by Hassan Fattah in the New York Times who is covering the story from.....JIDDA (will this guy ever cover a story on its land, or does he gain additional insight by covering countries from other countries?) is quite off. It is not true that there were emotional strains in his voice when he gave his statement, and his voice did NOT break down. His voice was strong. He also said that he had been watching New TV until that report. That admission was curious because there is a bitter feud between the owner of New TV (Tahsin Khayyat) and Rustum Ghazalah. To me, knowing about the bitter feud between Rustum Ghazalah and Kan`an, that admission made it revealing especially when Kan`an added that New TV may have been "fed that poison" from outside sources. Was that what he was referring to? A particular reference to sources in Syria intended to embarrass him? Was that why this report, only this report, caused Kan`an to react because he felt or knew that it could only have come from sources inside Syria, and from very high placed sources? And was that a deliberate Syrian official plan, to push Kan`an? And one Syrian correspondent reported that Kan`an was surprised when Mehliv did not ask him about the Hariri investigation, but inquired instead about the nature of the Lebanese-Syrian security order that was set up by Kan`an. And the coverage, or lack of, by Syrian media is still quite revealing. Syrian TV is still quite Ramadan-festive, and the coverage of Syrian newspapers is quite scant and minimal. In Ath-Thwrah newspaper the news of the Syrian president receiving the diplomatic credentials of the UAE ambassador preceded the news of Kan`an's suicide. People will of course be doubtful and skeptical about the official story line. Arab governments deserve to be disbelieved even when they tell the truth (if they tell the truth). They have lied so much to their people; lied about the little things, and about the bigger things. And now they want the people to believe this official story, when skepticism and cynicism is healthy and required for sane understanding of developments. I also now believe that we have to bring back conspiracy theories to Middle East political analysis. The region is now full of intrigues and conspiracies, and we have gone too far in mocking conspiracies. And it helps the passage and smooth sailing of conspiracies to continue to mock all conspiracy theories. And there are wild conspiracy theories but there are real conspiracies especially in the age of US Empire and Arab governmental surrender before US dictates. Syrian government is certainly precarious but the `Alawite `asabiyyah (yes, I permit myself to use it in this context, in reference to a ruling dynasty which was the way Ibn Khaldun used it) is the strongest card for the regime. Having watched the plight of not only Ba`thists, but even Sunnis in Iraq, the `Alawites in Syria have to close rank. They can only imagine their status and their plight if the Sunni Muslim Brothers, and even more fanatical variants and offshoots, take over. Of course, some members of the ruling elite may have criticisms and objections to Bashshar's style of rule, but what is their alternative? There is no known alternative to present to a (largely Sunni) public opinion. Landis (let the political exploitation begins by the US and its advocates abroad) says that "Kanaan was seen as being more pro-American." What was that? Kan`an was "seen as being more pro-American"? Seen by whom? And more than whom? Who is the one who is less pro-American, as is being implied? And who saw Kan`an being "pro-American"? Has he been waving the US flag in Sahat Al-Marjah without us knowing about it? Or is this one of those pearls of wisdom that American correspondents derive from conversations with cab drivers? What signs did Kan`an give to send the impression of being "more pro-American"? That is way too silly to engage here. But the `Alawite `Asabiyyah is not the only strong card of the regime. My dear friend (and advisor on Syrian affairs) Bassam Haddad believes that the US government would interfere to save the regime if there is a need at some point (for fear of the alternative). That may be true, but you can never underestimate the foolishness of the ruling clique in Washington, DC. I mean they have a proven record of utter stupidity in dealing with the Middle East (and that is not even from my standpoint but even in relation to their own set goals and objectives). They could easily watch the law of unintended consequences hit them in the face, all over again. But Syria in chaos is far more damaging and potentially expandable than the Iraqi scene. It will have immediate repercussions in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and even Jordan. Very early after Hariri's assassination, when the US acted too giddy and thrilled with the opportunity, I worried that the US will be too tempted to play with fire. Watching Lebanese and Syrian developments these days is like watching a suspenseful thriller. All the ingredients are there: revenge, betrayal, suicide, assassinations, leaks, shifting alliances, unsavory characters, tabloidish coverage, foreign envoys, fear, panic, constantly changing accounts and positions, etc. Bassam's mother compared it to the old soap opera Dynasty. But you can't say that it is fun to watch: people (I am not talking about officials but about the innocent people) are dying. And my mother reminded me last night that in Lebanon and Syria people are following the events with nervousness and fear, not knowing how the future will look like. I also noticed that the media did not mention that Kan`an is related by marriage to the Asad family. Also, when I see the Lebanese politicians commenting, I can only remember that all Lebanese politicians, singers, journalists and others have prostrated themselves before Kan`an. New TV noted today their absence from his funeral, with the exception of SSNP which under As`ad Hardan's leadership has been transformed into a tool of Syrian policy in Lebanon.