For Whom the Bells Toll
Is Syria Next?

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.¹ – 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.² – Gary Leupp, Professor of History,Tufts University

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.”⁴

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.⁸

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.¹⁰

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

Recent Israeli and American actions can be considered a manifestation of key strategic features of the post-September 11 world, and the result of the regional and international transformations which took place following the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Israeli attack on Syria was intended to send a clear message to Damascus to cease support for militant groups considered “terrorist” by Israel.

In many ways, the Israeli attack plays upon the same logic of pre-emption found in the Bush doctrine. Once the world’s sole superpower begins to attack countries pre-emptively, it sets a precedent that can be used by other regional powers to attack their enemies under the banner of “fighting terrorism” or “preventing future terrorist attacks.” For both Israel and the United States, the doctrine of pre-emption is a convenient cliché, used to rationalize their aggressive behavior and enable them to deal with their enemies.

More importantly, however, the attack illustrated Israel’s potential to the US – not only as an historical ally, but also as a strategic asset in the post-September 11 world. Israel is aware that the US is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is in no situation to open a new military front against Syria. In this regard, Israel’s attack against Syria sends a message to the US, that Israel can be its military arm. In other words, whereas the US would work to isolate Syria politically, economically, and diplomatically, Israel would be ready to go ahead with the military task and relieve the US of the cost of opening a new front. Hence, a symbiotic “division of labor” is emerging between Israel and the US. This would explain multiple diplomatic exchanges between both sides in the past weeks, from the US vetoing recent Security Council draft resolutions containing a condemnation of Israel, to its support for Israel’s recent and devastating military incursions into Gaza, and of course, for the attack against Syria.

Israel was encouraged in its act of aggression against Syria not only by an American “green light,” but also by the exceptional weakness of the Arab regional system following the occupation of Iraq, in addition to the fact that Syria is now sandwiched between Israel and the US military presence in Iraq.

Some analysts believe that Israel now plans to treat the Syrian regime much as it has treated Palestine’s Yasser Arafat over the past three years, i.e. accusing it of orchestrating every bombing against Israel and working diplomatically and militarily to isolate it both regionally and internationally with the help of the US.¹¹ Sharon realizes that despite his use of various military means – large-scale military incursions, reoccupation of Palestinian territories and targeted assassinations – he has failed to crush the Palestinian uprising. Therefore, a successful attack on Syria would give him a badly needed political victory. In addition, a military escalation with Syria would represent a return to classical warfare methods in which Israel enjoys a relative advantage over conventional Arab armies, as opposed to dealing with a Palestinian uprising using guerilla tactics and asymmetric warfare.

Conclusions

Since 1990, Syria has engaged in many positive steps towards reconciliation with the US. It joined George Bush Senior’s grand coalition against Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War, and after September 11 it provided the US with much needed intelligence concerning al-Qaeda’s activities. In addition, it voted alongside the US in the United Nations in favor of a resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq. In this respect, it becomes more evident that current US and Israeli steps aim at punishing Syria not for what it did, but rather for what it did not do – support US military activities in Iraq and end its support for resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon.

The neoconservative and pro-Zionist hawks who dominate the Bush administration and control influential Congressional circles are interested in redrawing the map of the Middle East. In their view, a “successful” post-war Iraq is a weak, pro-American federal state, lead by a puppet regime that will never again challenge American and Israeli interests. After having eliminated Saddam Hussein – Israel’s last Arab opponent of strategic weight – Israel hopes to benefit from America’s recent war against Iraq by inciting the US to take on Syria and Iran as well. Sharon is, after all, the foremost champion of a “Greater Israel,” and the architect behind many of Israel’s grandiose regional ambitions. Sharon and his powerful friends in the Bush administration seek to weaken Syria, disarm Hizbullah, and eventually force Syria to give up its claim to the Golan, seized by Israel in the 1967 war. In addition, they seek to end all types of Arab support for the Palestinians and force them to accept a fragmented, truncated, and defenseless entity on Israel’s terms.¹² They also hope to break the Syrian-Iranian alliance – the most durable alliance in the region for more than two decades. This aspect becomes important if one notes recent revelations reported by the German and American press, indicating Mossad plans for a surprise attack on six alleged Iranian nuclear facilities.¹³ Also, recent reports confirm that Israel modified submarine-launched US-made cruise missiles to make them nuclear-capable; hence giving the Middle East’s only nuclear power the ability to strike swiftly at any of its neighbors.¹⁴

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?

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.

1- Gary Leupp, “Who’s On the ‘Wrong Side of History’?” Counterpunch October 7^th, 2003

2- Ibid.

3- Ibid.

4- “Syria and Israel in War of Words,” Al-Jazeera (English) October 11^th, 2003

5- Paul Basken, “Bush Backs Sanctions Against Syria,”  Global Security October 9^th, 2003

6- Benjamin Duncan, “US Raising Stakes With Syria,” Al-Jazeera (English) October 9^th, 2003

7- Brian Knowlton, “A US Warning to Iran and Syria,”  International Herald Tribune July 22^nd, 2003

8- Patrick Seale, “Why Are the US and Israel Threatening Syria?” Minority X April 18^th, 2003

9- Ed Vulliamy, “Syria Could Be Next, Warns Washington,” Guardian Unlimited April 13^th, 2003

10- “US Prevented Major Israeli Attack on Syria,” World Tribune June 18^th, 2002

11- Neil Macfarquhar, “News Analysis: Israeli Raid on Syria Alters a 30-year-old ‘Proxy Game’” International Herald Tribune October 14^th, 2003

12- Patrick Seale, “Why Are the US and Israel Threatening Syria?” Minority X  April 18^th, 2003

13- “Israel Plans for Iran Attack,” Al-Jazeera (English) October 12^th, 2003

14- Peter Beaumont and Conal Urguhart, “Israel Deploys Nuclear Arms in Submarines,” Guardian Unlimited October 12^th, 2003

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses