The New US-Syrian Confrontation
Abdullah IskandarAl-Hayat06/07/05/

It seems that the United States has moved into a new phase in its relation with Syria. It also seems to have reached the point of no return in that phase. When Washington decides to freeze the accounts of Syrian security officials, accusing them of “raising problems” in Lebanon and Iraq. When seeking to punish Damascus for “not progressing toward freedom”, Washington is defining the nature of the regime in Syria, on the one hand. On the other hand, it is outlining the possible boundaries for normalization of relations.

The American decision came about after a series of warnings to Damascus and after “sanctions” of an economic nature. Furthermore, sanctions were imposed on what Washington considered to have been forbidding Syria (along with Iran and North Korea): to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, the American decision to declare the names of security officials in Syria implies the transition from the phase of economic sanctions to a political strategy against the regime in Damascus and its main officials. When the names of those officials are directly linked to security then it implies that Washington has specified the nature of the Syrian regime, only in its security aspect. Hence, it implies that it is the lack of democracy, and political and economic freedoms. It also means the loss of hope in any possible openness with regard to these values. In other words, Washington is declaring that any dialogue with the regime will not be beneficial. In this way, the confrontation against the Syrian regional role has moved to the confrontation against the Syrian regime locally.

Washington has moved the confrontation with Syria to that level following a series of regional changes that occurred since the American invasion of Iraq and since the infamous list of demands that the former US Secretary of State Colin Powell carried to Damascus. Those demands revealed that the US military presence in the region is working on ending any other regional role, particularly the Syrian role that had substantially expanded in the last three decades preceding the invasion. Washington considers that the circumstances that led to its recognition of that regional role : avoiding any regime allied to the PLO in Lebanon during the civil war and then the war of the liberation of Kuwait, no longer exist. Subsequently, Syria should operate solely within the internal front and cease all regional ties. It should also seek to implement the appropriate internal changes to push forward the political and economic reform process that responds to the American concep of the new Middle East.

Since Powell informed Syria of those demands, the American position began to gradually escalate in confrontation of the Syrian regime, which failed to convince Washington that it is concurring with its regional role, especially in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. It failed to find a mechanism of understanding, that might lead to serious bilateral dialogue. Instead, it has sufficed with indirect dialogue via third parties, which proved incapable of mending what has been broken.

Finally America was capable of achieving major stride on the Syrian western front. In fact, the Palestinian elections imposed a ceasefire Damascus was accused of opposing, in addition to pushing talks with Israel forward, especially as far as the Gaza pullout plan is concerned. Issuing UN resolution 1559 and forcing into Syria a military withdrawal from Lebanon according to a timetable, followed by parliamentary elections that carried Syria’s opponents to power, were two other major strides. However, on the eastern front, Washington seemed incapable of making a decisive success. The US effort to impose security and stability in Iraq were doomed to failure, despite the success of the electoral process, which put forth many questions over the nature of the US success. Moreover, the Iranian elections resulted in the victory of a hard-line figure, inclined to adopt hostility toward the US more than dialogue. This outcome might lead to reshuffle the cards on the western front, particularly in Lebanon.

The US speculations consider that Damascus is attempting to give the impression that it abandoned its anti-American regional role, while trying to benefit from the troubles in Iraq and in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, particularly in light of the new Iranian administration. Subsequently, the US administration decided to move the confrontation with Damascus from the demands of abandoning its regional role to the demands that relate to the internal front and to the most basic lifeline of the regime.

Enforcing US sanctions on Syrian officials means that Washington is convinced with the reasons of their guilt, or hinting that it holds the elements of their condemnation. Is the timing of the statement related to the international investigation into the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, knowing that the targeted officials are the ones that held the power in Lebanon and those who, according to the Fitzgerald report, have prepared the political atmosphere for the assassination? These considerations presume certain procedures from the Security Council since the crime is considered a “terrorist act”. In this way, Washington has anticipated the results of the UN investigation, holding Damascus responsible, regardless of the probe outcome. It has given Damascus the options of either submitting the accused for trial or facing the implications of a refusal. The scenario of the two choices has already been used by Washington when the idea of invading Iraq was first conceived: Washington offered Saddam Hussein to choose between two options: leaving power or facing war.