| |
US
turns its sights back on Syria
By Hooman Peimani
After a few weeks of American allegations and threats levelled against Syria,
the Syrian Foreign Ministry launched its own counterattack against the United
States on Monday. Accordingly, its spokesperson raised doubts about the real
objective behind last week's killing of Saddam Hussein's sons. The Syrian move
reflected the growing hostility between Damascus and Washington despite signs
of improving relations in the months following the collapse of the Iraqi
regime.
In her interview with a Lebanese television program, Syrian Foreign Ministry
spokesperson Buthaina Shaaban suggested that the killing of Uday and Qusay
Hussein might have been planned for a certain reason. She made the suggestion
while speculating about the possibility of having the brothers apprehended.
Thus, "the United States could have captured Saddam Hussein's sons alive".
Based on that assumption, she added, "killing the pair in a US military raid in
Iraq may have aimed at covering up Washington's past political dealings with
the defunct regime".
Shaaban therefore speculated that Saddam's sons could have been knowledgeable
about secret relations between Washington and Baghdad during their honeymoon in
the 1980s. In particular, she referred to the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980,
which led to a devastating eight-year war. At that time, Washington encouraged
Saddam to attack Iran - an open secret, given the extent of support the Iraqi
regime received from Western, including NATO, states. As admitted by almost all
of them in one form or another, they assisted the Iraqi war efforts by
providing advanced weapons and by helping the Iraqis with their weapon
development projects. A well-known example is the American, British and German
involvement in their weapons-of-mass-destruction projects, especially the
development of chemical weapons.
Syrian-US relations took a hostile direction right after the Anglo-American
occupation of Iraq. At that time, the US accused the Syrians of providing to
the Saddam regime military equipment (night vision goggles) and of providing a
safe haven for senior Iraqi officials. The US then toned down it's anti-Syria
statements as it heated up the war of words against Iran, which became the
focus of the same types of accusations as Washington made against the Iraqi
regime prior to the war. Increased diplomatic contacts between the US and Syria
suggested an effort to de-escalate their hostility. US Secretary of State Colin
Powel's June visit to Damascus created grounds for optimism about the end of a
dangerous situation which seemed to have the potential to develop into a US
attack on Syria as part of a plan for reshaping the entire Middle East.
There was a clear shift in Washington's propaganda campaign as Iran became its
main target. Added to the two-decade-old allegations about Tehran's nuclear
weapon program, the Iranian government was accused of harboring al-Qadea
operatives and even of indirectly masterminding a terrorist attack in Saudi
Arabia. The latter was a surprising accusation, given the growing
multi-dimensional Tehran-Riyadh relations and last year's extradition by Iran
to Saudi Arabia of the Saudi members of al-Qaeda arrested by the Iranian
authorities as they escaped to Iran from Afghanistan.
In another surprising development, Syria regained its prominence in the
American war of accusations about two weeks ago. US officials have since
accused Damascus of active support of terrorists, of supporting the ousted
Iraqi regime and of sheltering some of its members. In this regard, a good
example is President George W Bush's speech on July 22. "Today Syria and Iran
continue to harbor and assist terrorists", stressed the president. He added,
"this behaviour is completely unacceptable and the states that support terror
will be held accountable. This undermines the prospects for peace in the Middle
East and betrays the true interests of the Palestinian people."
Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk as-Shara saw "Israeli hands" behind the change
of American tone toward Syria, as he stated last Sunday. In fact, the US
president made the remarks a few days before Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon's visit to Washington. Hence, while Israel could have influenced the
Bush administration, the mounting US hostility is still well within
Washington's original plan of dealing with "rogue" states one by one, which
also serves Israel's interests.
Although Iran has been the favorite candidate for regime change through US
military means, various factors have created practical barriers to that, and
non-military measures to effect regime change have gained favor, at least for
the time being. The factors range from a hostile international mood toward
Washington to the US military being over-stretched to Iran's significant
military power and its capability to expand any war beyond its border.
The increasing American casualties both in Iraq and in less-publicized
Afghanistan is certainly encouraging the Bush administration to find ways to
distract attention from that. However, this objective also serves another:
"dealing" with Iran and Syria, as they are obstacles to the expansion and
consolidation of US influence in the strategically important Middle East.
Given the current extensive commitment of the US military to many overseas
operations, there is no realistic possibility of engaging in a war with Iran,
which would be a major undertaking even if all other conditions were met. In
such a situation, small and militarily/economically weak Syria seems an easier
target for the US than large, rich and militarily far stronger Iran. Iran's
potential capability to worsen the already poor security situation in both Iraq
and Afghanistan makes a strong case for picking on Syria, at least as long as
the present situation persists.
Dr Hooman Peimani works as an independent consultant with international
organizations in Geneva and does research in international relations.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our
sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
