Syrian Peace Conference Likely Won't Take Place Until September, If Then

Today is the second day in a row that the New York Times national edition has no coverage of Syria. Events in Egypt, with a showdown now between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military looming large, have crowded out coverage of the civil war.

Reuters has a story which is built around a rebel video threatening two Shiite villages, Nubl and Zahra, near Aleppo. SANA reports a terror bombing in Damascus as the SAA grinds away in Homs.

Online Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times has a story about the status of the peace conference. Now September is being spoken of as a possible date. The story is a useful recapitulation of the bargaining positions of the United States and Russia. Reading it I am once again struck by the destructiveness of U.S. strategy, which is to foment chaos in hopes that it will bring al-Assad to the table. Imagine a situation where al-Assad immediately accedes to Western wishes and steps down. The sectarian warfare will not stop. The opposition is splintered. They most likely will continue fighting each other for spoils. There is already some of this going on among jihadi groups.

If civil war erupts in Egypt everything changes. The Wahhabis will be in a pickle. The Muslim Brotherhood is their baby. Will they allow a return of military control? Possibly. If they are allowed to achieve their aims of Talibanizing Syria.

Support for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Disappears at the Polls

Salman Masood has a story in today's paper about Pakistan's election victor, Nawaz Sharif, visiting his humbled opponent Imran Khan in the hospital. Khan is recovering from a broken back he suffered on the campaign trail. Sharif is riding high; his Pakistan Muslim League-N party surpassed expectations. He can afford to be gracious. The boisterous support for Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party evaporated at the polls. Charges of vote-rigging are being bandied about. And while I'm sure there is some substance to them, the underlying reality is that politics is a grubby affair. We like soaring rhetoric and big pictures; but when it comes time to vote, fear and hate are in the booth with the ballot. Khan's electrifying rallies -- like Nader's in 2000 -- didn't translate to a large percentage of the vote.

What troubles me about a Sharif-led government comes towards the end of yesterday's story by Declan Walsh -- the outsize influence of Saudi Arabia:

But in foreign policy, Mr. Sharif has another source of support: his close relationship with Saudi Arabia, where he whiled away his exile. King Abdullah helped broker Mr. Sharif’s return to Pakistan in 2007, and Mr. Sharif maintains close ties with Riyadh. That relationship, although discreet, could provide an alternative source of economic aid, as well as a powerful ally.

I'm not a big fan of the Persian Gulf monarchies and their deep-pocketed support for the global export of the Wahhabi movement.