VIEWS & ANALYSES: For Whom the Bells Toll

Is Syria Next?

Saturday, October 11, 2003

By Kareem M. Kamel

Researcher -- International Relations

Kareem M. Kamel is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo, Egypt. He has an MA in International Relations and is specialized in security studies, decision- making, nuclear politics, Middle East politics and the politics of Islam. He is currently assistant to the Political Science Department at the American University in Cairo.

If President Assad chooses not to respond, if he chooses to dissemble, if he chooses to find excuses, then he will find that he is on the wrong side of history.

-- US Secretary of State, Colin Powell

Being “on the right side of history” means being on the side of those whose roadmap for peace simply requires Arab governments to ally with the US, recognize Israel, collaborate in the suppression of Palestinian militancy, accept a noncontiguous Palestinian Bantustan state ... eliminate any weapons of mass destruction which might threaten nuclear Israel, actively suppress elements of Islam objectionable to Israel and the US, and accept the US occupation of Iraq. It would be helpful, too, if they fully open their markets, place their banks, industries and utilities under foreign control, and host US military bases.

-- Gary Leupp, Professor of History,Tufts University

For the decision-makers in Washington and Tel Aviv, force, domination and military conquest are the most important tools of international relations. It remains to be seen how Arab and Muslim states will react to the American-Israeli threat to their history, independence, sovereignty, and more importantly, their future existence. Will their governments act now, or will they surrender themselves to being pawns in the Bush-Sharon game of empire building?

Islam Online
Events in the Middle East took a dramatic turn in the past few weeks when Israel launched an air strike against an alleged training camp for Palestinian militants in Ein Saheb, 15 km northwest of Damascus. The raid, Israel’s first attack on Syrian territory since 1973, came right after a Palestinian bombing, claimed by Islamic Jihad, in Haifa, northern Israel, which left 19 Israelis dead. While the Israeli-Syrian border has been relatively quiet since the armistice agreement following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, both countries fought each other in Lebanon or through proxy forces during the Lebanese civil war. However, the Israeli raid signals an end to proxy warfare between both sides and the beginning of a new chapter in Arab-Israeli confrontations.

Leaders from all over the world condemned the Israeli attack on Syria as an act of “extreme gravity,” and an “unacceptable breach of international law.” On the other hand, US President George Bush said that Israel had a right to defend itself and that it “must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland.”3 In the following days, a war of words erupted between Israel and Syria, in which the Syrian spokeswoman, Bushra Kanafani asserted Syria's right of self-defense in case of further Israeli attack, and Israel responded provocatively by insisting that it had the option to attack anytime, against any country that harbored “terrorists.”

At the same time, the US House International Relations Committee voted 33-2 in favor of the Syria Accountability Act, which threatens penalties that include prohibiting all US exports to Syria except food and medicine, barring US investments or business operations in Syria, and banning Syrian aircraft from US airspace.5 The Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 charges Syria with supporting “terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, and Islamic Jihad, continuing to develop a weapons of mass destruction program and permitting Arab fighters to cross its border into Iraq to attack US troops.” It also criticizes Syria for refusing to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, where it maintains roughly 17,000 troops.6 The sponsors of the bill said that they have strong support for their cause even in the Senate and were confident that their bill would eventually make it to the president’s desk as a final piece of legislation. The Bush administration itself withdrew its opposition to the congressional measure, citing Syria’s failure to heed US demands.

US threats against Syria are not new. In fact, in the days after the fall of Baghdad, several US officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, issued strong warnings about Syria’s behavior. Syria was said to have given refuge to fleeing Iraqi leaders, to have permitted anti-Israeli “terror” groups to keep offices in Damascus, and to have stores of weapons of mass destruction.7 As if to underline this warning, the US bombed the Syrian trade center in Baghdad and shut down the oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria. Syria’s valuable trade with Iraq – which totaled about $5 billion in the period 1998-2002 – was and remains cut off. This is a serious blow to the Syrian economy, since Iraq had in recent years become Syria’s main trading partner.

Reports then surfaced that the US pledged to tackle the Syrian-backed Hizbullah group in the next phase of its “war on terror,” in a move that could threaten military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus. Then, on July 21, 2003, Bush said after a meeting with Italian premier, Silvio Berlusconi: “Today, Syria and Iran continue to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable.” In addition, US Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly urged the Syrians to not only close down the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but to expel their members from Syria.9 Simultaneously, other reports indicated that as early as May 2002, the Israeli military was preparing for a major military offensive against Syria, in response to a series of Hizbullah attacks along the Lebanese border with the Jewish state. Israeli officials confirmed then that plans were underway for the assassination of Hizbullah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, and that their military reserves had been mobilized for a confrontation with Syria.

Given America’s endless “war on terrorism” and the recent military campaign against Iraq, no one can precisely predict the nature of future confrontations in the Middle East. However, recent Israeli and US moves against Syria indicate that an important threshold has been crossed, and a new and dangerous chapter in the history of the region is unfolding.

* Strategic Dimensions of US-Israeli Actions

* Conclusions

(More: IslamOnline.net)
2003 © Islam Online.

A month old opinion-piece, but still discussion-worthy I think,

Dan