THE HANDSTAND

june 2005

Commentary by

By Patrick Seale

Monday, May 16, 2005

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=15109

Now that Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, having implemented its part of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and now that a new Lebanese government is in place committed to holding "free and fair" elections this month, is the crisis over? Can Syria hope to escape further American pressures? Will a halt now be called to the international campaign against it? Nothing could be further from the truth.

For Syria's main enemies in Washington, forcing Syrian troops out of Lebanon was only a means to an end. The real objective was the destabilization of Syria itself as a step toward the overthrow of the regime. This is a main conclusion of a new book on Syria's young president, Bashar Assad, published in the United States last week. Its title is "Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire." Its author is Flynt Leverett, a former official at the CIA, the State Department, and the National Security Council. Rumor has it that he was removed from his post by Elliott Abrams, an ardent "friend of Israel," when the latter took over as director of Near East Affairs at the NSA. Leverett may now be getting his revenge.

Leverett has benefited from interviews with Assad. His book is a critique of American policy toward Syria - and by implication of the pro-Israeli neoconservatives who have shaped U.S. Middle East policy under the Bush administration. At the recent launch of his book, Leverett claimed that the American administration was moving toward a policy of regime change in Syria. "More and more people in the administration are inclined in that direction," he warned. "I think," he added, "that the administration has accepted an assessment of Syrian politics that, by forcing Syria out of Lebanon, this regime is not going to be able to recover from that blow and will start to unravel." In short, according to Leverett, the neocons believe that, if sufficient pressure is exercised on Damascus, Bashar will fall from the inside.

Is Leverett right? Is Syria still the target of a conspiracy? A first step in any answer must be to distinguish between the motives of the external actors who, in recent months, have pressured Syria to leave Lebanon. By co-sponsoring Resolution 1559 in conjunction with the U.S., France played a central role in the crisis. The joint diplomatic initiative provided an opportunity for it to ease its strained relations with Washington. But its motives were very different from those of the U.S.

France does not seek Assad's overthrow. Rather, French President Jacques Chirac grew impatient with the slow pace of Syria's internal reforms and was deeply offended when Assad insisted last year on extending the mandate of Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, a move which caused Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to resign. When Hariri, Chirac's close personal friend, was murdered last February, the French president was deeply affected. But France's essential aim in the crisis was not the destabilization of Syria but the restoration of Lebanon's "sovereignty," as Foreign Minister Michel Barnier explained on a visit to Washington last week. France has been intimately involved with Lebanon since the creation of the modern state in 1920. It has considerable interests in that country which it intends to defend against all comers - including the U.S. Now that Syria has pulled out its troops, French pre-eminence in Lebanon can reaffirmed, while Franco-Syrian relations are likely, in turn, to be repaired in due course.

The same cannot be said for U.S.-Syrian relations. For Washington's neoconservatives - anxious to remodel the Middle East to suit American and Israeli interests - Syria lies at the center of a hostile network, which includes the insurgents in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Hizbullah in Lebanon, in addition to Syria itself. For the network to collapse the Syrian regime must be overthrown.

The ongoing insurgency in Iraq has proved to be the main obstacle to the neocon fantasy of a "reformed" and "democratized" Middle East, no longer able to challenge U.S. and Israeli strategic goals. But instead of proving a democratic model for the region, a shattered Iraq has sunk into a morass of lawlessness and violence. It is now clear that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is in deep trouble. There is no sign that the insurgency is being brought under control. Even though fewer American troops are being killed than some months ago, the insurgents are now directing their ferocious attacks on American "collaborators," notably the embryonic Iraqi Army and police. They are being killed almost as fast as their American instructors are training them.

As a result, the idea has taken root in some circles in Washington that there can be no victory in Iraq until Syria and Iran - seen as providing a "rear base" for the insurgency - are brought to heel. As Washington seems reluctant to launch a military attack against Iran, a hard nut to crack, an alternative course is regime change in Syria. The neocons argue that a pro-American government in Damascus would result in the isolation, encirclement and neutralization of Iran.

Israel applauded the American invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destruction of that country, which removed for the foreseeable future any possibility of a hostile "Eastern Front" directed against the Jewish state. In the same way, Israel has been quick to express its immense satisfaction at Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, which it sees as an important step toward its main objective - the disarming of Hizbullah.

Israel has a score to settle with Hizbullah, which drove Israel out of South Lebanon in 2000. Today, Israel fears that Hizbullah will continue to play a dual role - as an instrument for continued Syrian influence in Lebanon and as an obstacle to any attempt by Israel to infiltrate itself back into Lebanese affairs. Some Israelis - perhaps even including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - dream of a replay of the events of 1983 when, after the Israeli invasion a year earlier, Lebanon was induced to sign a separate peace with Israel. It was aborted by Syria and its local allies. Might an opportunity for a separate peace arise again? Israel would seize it; Syria would do everything to prevent it. 

Needless to say, Israel would welcome continued U.S. pressure on the regime in Damascus, or indeed any scenario of chaos which might follow its overthrow. Weakening Syria would create opportunities for Israel in Lebanon, while at the same time strengthening its hand in any future dealings with Syria itself. In the meantime, it would delay or remove altogether any international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

The word from Washington is that the U.S. has strongly advised Sharon not to enter into peace negotiations with Assad. Perhaps the neocons believe a different regime in Damascus would create a more favorable climate for such talks. If this is indeed true, then the Syrian regime must expect a renewed assault by its enemies. It remains in extreme danger.

But what if the whole neocon program for the Middle East were profoundly mistaken? The balance sheet so far is heavily in the red. America's occupation of Iraq and Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories - both illegal and immoral enterprises - have been condemned by much of the world. Both countries stand accused in the court of public opinion. Each has been corrupted by its occupation and seen its reputation irredeemably tarnished by the harsh, repressive and trigger-happy behavior of its soldiers. Rather than seek fresh adventures, each should now pull back to safer ground.

Patrick Seale is author of a number of books on Syria, including "Assad: The Struggle for the Middle East." He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Rice Blames Syria for Resistance in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, and for Interfering in the Coming Lebanese Elections

Mon May 16, 2005 11:50 AM ET

SHANNON, Ireland (Reuters) - 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice revived U.S. allegations on Monday that Syria had allowed foreign fighters to cross into Iraq and fuel the Iraqi resistance to the US occupation. Rice otherwise gave a relatively upbeat assessment as she returned from a brief visit to Iraq, saying she was confident the Iraqis would write a constitution by August 15 and include more Sunni Muslims in drafting it.

Rice reserved her harshest words for Syria, which the United States has long accused of stoking the Iraqi resistance by allowing its border to be an entry point for fighters.

"We're going to go back and look again at what the neighbors can do -- particularly the Syrians -- to stop support for these foreign (fighters) who we believe are gathering on Syrian soil and coming across," she told reporters as she flew home.

Rice also repeated U.S. accusations that Syria backs anti-Israeli resistance groups and said it was likely to try to influence parliamentary elections in Lebanon through a lingering intelligence presence in its neighbor.

"The Syrians have managed to get themselves in a situation of standing in the way of the progress of people in the Middle East and I would think that wouldn't be a very comfortable place for a Syrian regime to be," Rice said.

U.S. officials believe one way to drain support for the Iraqi resistance among Sunnis was to draw them into drafting the constitution.

She said she was "actually pretty confident" the Iraqis would draft a constitution by August 15 despite the probability of ups and downs as the deadline approaches.

Rice said the Iraqi government, which relies on the 138,000 U.S. troops and 23,000 coalition forces in Iraq to provide security, was trying to take on more of this itself.

 (Reporting by Arshad Mohammed; editing by Paul Holmes)