The Baathist Syrian regime has been rocked by an interview with ex-Vice President Abdul Halim Kaddam broadcast on al-Arabiya Television. Kaddam criticizes Bashar al-Assad's reign and basically told the world that Bashar ordered the Hariri assassination - without explicitly saying it. Although Kaddam claimed that he left Syria on good terms and remained friendly with Bashar, the Syrian regime accused Kaddam of treason and stripped him of his Baath party membership.

A few days later, Kaddam called on the Syrian people to overthrow the Assad regime. He also disavowed any interest in power himself.

Kaddam is no reformer. He is an old Baathist hack, who praised criminals like Hafez al-Assad and Syrian proconsul of Lebanon the late Ghazi al-Kannan. There is clearly more than meets the eye. The Syrian Reform Party speculates that Kaddam is fronting for an insider who is manuevering to replace Assad. They further note that it is no accident that Kaddam and his family are now in Paris, so that whatever the plot the French are in on it. Also, there could be a Saudi factor. Hariri made his initial fortune in Saudi Arabia and was always close them.

If there is a Franco-Saudi backed coup being plotted we need to watch carefully. The result will not be democratic and may be an Islamist regime. The U.S. is abysmal a coup-plotting, we are too elephantine for that kind of subtle work. But this direction may not serve U.S. interests - it may not even buy us quiet on the Iraqi border if the Saudis are involved.

Meanwhile, Bashar has a possible White Knight. Russia is building a $2.7 billion refinery and petrochemical plant in northeast Syria - nothing like a little cash to keep a corrupt, imploding regime viable.

As I write this it appears unlikely that Arial Sharon will be able to return to his office. He may live, and I certainly wish that his remaining time is comfortable. It is difficult to imagine a man of Sharon's strength and energy succumbing to age, but it is inevitable. Sharon, a major figure in Israeli history, has been at the forefront of all of the nation's conflicts - as a soldier and commando in '48 and '56, as a General in '67 and '73, Defense Minister in '82, and as Prime Minister. Everything he did was of outsized proportions. He smashed the Egyptian army and invaded Africa in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. He plotted the ambitious Lebanese campaign of 1982. This war, although it became mired in tragedy, was an inspiration for the Iraqi endeavor. The massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was pinned (not without some justice) on Sharon, yet he came back. Not only did he return to the Israeli mainstream but he became Prime Minister, winning large victories and becoming one of the most powerful and longest serving PMs in Israel's short history - in great part because of his adroit handling of the al-Aqsa Intifada. If his health permitted, he would unquestionably have won another term as Prime Minister.

A person of this scale would be missed whatever the circumstances. But in Israel the empty space will be even greater. He is the last great leader from Israel's founding generation. The men and women who founded Israel were all out-sized personalities - Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Menahem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres. Love or hate their politics these were men and women of greatness, who steered the Zionist enterprise and built a light onto the nations.

Sharon is the last one (Peres is still alive but irrelevant). The next generation is tiny in the founding generation's shadow. Yet, and in a region ruled by strong men this is important (in Egypt, when Mubarak gets cold the Nile itself freezes), there will be a contentious but peaceful succession and there will be an election. The founding generation did a good job, good enough that the state can survive without them.

So what does a policy wonk due for a wild New Year's Eve?

Mix a few drinks and kick back and watch the 220 minute extravaganza "Lawrence of Arabia" on "On Demand."

They could never make a movie like it again - not because of the budget or the epic quality. Computers can generate whole universes. But CAIR (that is Hamas front Council on American-Islamic Relations) would never allow it. We see the Arab leaders engaged in blood feuds, selling their loyalty to the highest bidder, looting, and, after capturing Damascus, utterly unable to handle administrating anything larger than a nomadic clan. (A perfect example, after executing a man to prevent a blood feud, Lawrence hurls his pistol away in disgust. Tribesman run to be the first to retrieve it.)

There are many interesting bits in the movie that hint at far deeper issues. Prince Feisel (leader of the Arab revolt, played incongruously by Sir Alec Guinness) discusses his longing for the gardens of Cordoba. (See the blog entry just below this one!)

A discussion between Feisel and his British military advisor effectively summarizes Bernard Lewis' masterful "What Went Wrong." The Colonel is trying to explain that Britain's strength is in its discipline. The Prince replies that the key to Britain's success is its possession of modern artillery.

A few other bits in the movie have an odd contemporary ring. A U.S. reporter, who is practically embedded with Lawrence and his Arab army, discusses the treatment of POWs with Feisel. Feisel insists all is according to the Geneva Convention.

At another point, Gen. Allenby, on receiving a report on artillery strikes against the Turkish Army, urges his commanders to "pound them." My wife noted wryly, "Shock and awe."

In an ironic counterpoint to our current Iraqi endeavor - Allenby, on leading the British Army into Damascus, orders his Technical and Medical units quartered. The Arab Council, brokered by Lawrence, is left to run the city. They lack the technical skills and the council soon dissolves into bickering. The British are welcomed back into the vacuum. Good planning. The present U.S. situation is about the opposite, we were hoping the Iraqis could get everything together, and we could step out of the situation.

The thumbnail review - if you don't know a thing about the Middle East, the movie is as good a place as any to get a sense of things. It is a fairly fast-moving 220 minutes, but it is still 220 minutes. Don't look to it as an exact historical record, look to it more for impressions.