The unanswered question has popped up into the spotlight again after the tragic death of British surgeon Dr. Abbas Khan in Damascus: Who rules Syria? Though this case is very sad and tragic, not many have delved beyond the superficiality of blaming the Syrian regime for murder most foul, and then left it at that. Any casual observer might draw the same inference at first glance, but upon further examination there may be more than meets the eye. The unfortunate tale starts about a year ago, when Dr. Abbas Khan with all the best intentions crossed the Turkish border into Syria with medical supplies and with the hope that he could make a difference and be able to treat the numerous wounded civilians in Syria's brutal conflict. As it happens, he strayed into regime held territory and was immediately arrested. So began his ordeal which would end in his untimely demise. The official Syrian government statement on Dr. Khan's death pronounced it as suicide, which is preposterous to anyone who has followed the case closely. Even British MP George Galloway who played a pivotal role in helping secure Dr. Khan's release dismissed it as ludicrous. Grieving family members described his joy just prior to his release and imminent reunion with his children. So why would a man who has endured for so long, suddenly decide to hang himself with his pajamas just days before he was to be released? The short answer is, he didn't, he was murdered. But by whom? And more importantly, why? For what possible reason could such a well-known prisoner residing in a Syrian regime jail, and after such painstaking and arduous negotiations resulting in his pardon and release, be murdered so callously and in plain sight? What possible motivation could the regime have, if indeed it was the regime that murdered him, or to put it more accurately, elements of the regime? "Elements of the regime" seem to be the keywords to understanding this puzzling incident. It wasn't so long ago that analysts and observers were openly questioning and speculating upon the extent of President Bashar Al Assad's authority over his own men and pervasive security apparatus, and now those questions have once more popped up into the spotlight. It has long been a cause for debate exactly how much weight Bashar holds inside the ruling clique that governs the police state he inherited from his father, the late Hafez Al Assad whose iron fisted rule was undisputed. Certainly, he wasn't the first in line for succession, deemed too soft to take on the responsibility of governing such a difficult and complex country as Syria, his older and much tougher brother Bassel was groomed for that role. But upon his brother's untimely death, Bashar had to take a crash course in leadership and was almost comically elevated in military rank reaching field marshal in just a few years. After a farcical "vote" at the Syrian parliament which saw the constitution changed to lower the minimum age of the president from 40 to 34 (which just happened to be Bashar's age) he ascended to the presidency after his father's death. Syria went through a rocky time then, but the instability gradually winded down, and Syria enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity, and Bashar eased into his role as supreme ruler and saw his popularity soar amid genuine public support. But even back then there were mutterings about how much power he actually wielded, with talk of the "old guard" (his father's men and prominent generals) versus the new blood such as his billionaire cousin Rami Makhlouf who helped shape Syria's economic liberalization in the decade to come. The crushing of the "Damascus Spring" and imprisonment of the signatories of the Damascus Declaration early on in his reign were seen as a sign of the power and influence the old guard had over the fledgling leader who had encouraged those unprecedented experiments in democracy, so setting himself up as a reformer in the eyes of the west. Even his mother is said to have a strong say over his decision making, as well as his younger brother Maher head of the elite Republican Guards, prompting many to describe Syria as a ruled by the Assad family, not by Bashar alone. All that background helps put into perspective what we see today, and indeed many of the events that have manifested in Syria over the last tumultuous two and a half years. It could be that the tragic death of Dr. Khan was a power play within Assad's own regime, with some trying to undermine his authority just as he was trying to tentatively mend broken ties with western powers with a good faith gesture. For that is the scenario now seen as the most likely in this case. But other equally important and pressing questions then present themselves. Is the Iranian influence overly powerful even among his closest and most trusted aides and generals, and did Iran have anything to do with this incident? How far can he really trust them to do his bidding? Will he ever find out who disobeyed his orders and killed Dr. Khan, and why? It is likely we may never know the real truth as it will be lost in the murky shadows and intricacies of this most secretive of regimes. It is told that Hafez al Assad executed the warden of the infamous Tadmur (Palmyra) prison for daring to lie to him about the presence of a Saudi inmate being held there in the 80's. Will his son Bashar have the strength to do the same to those who have openly defied him? That still remains to be seen. Bashar himself said it clearly, although perhaps not much was read into it at that time, in his interview with American broadcast journalist Barbara Walter that the Syrian army was "not mine, I do not control it". I was privileged early on in the Syrian crisis to have a candid conversation with someone who intimately knew the Syrian president, and I put forward to him that most important of questions, "is the president really in charge?" to which he replied, "He is the first among equals". In hindsight, I think that answer explained much of what later transpired in Syria, including the tragic case of Dr. Khan. Syria is not one man's kingdom, it is the domain of many, and each plays his hand as he sees fit, not always in unison with his allies.
