Forever containing Syria
Rime Allaf - May 2010
Middle East International

In a region known to be volatile and susceptible to changes, the degree of predictability regarding accusations about Syria’s offenses, real and alleged, creates a strange element of stability, practically bordering on the absurd. There is one thing of which we can always be sure: Syria can do no good, as far as its critics are concerned, with its refusal to change its behaviour, and to turn its back on various parties with whom it has been allied for years, for the honour of being taken out of its ‘isolation’ and reintegrated with the ‘international community’.

As predictable as the accusations are the punishments which the US applies to those who do not obey its commands: at every opportunity, on every anniversary, sanctions big and small, significant and petty, are renewed against Syria for daring to resist, even though the question of choice remains unposed: is Syria really in a position to abide by these demands, even if it wanted to?

The US has not troubled itself of late with the consequences of the acts of compliance it expects --a pity in an age where even big powers, and even superpowers, must at least pretend to be working for the greater good. But how can American officials be oblivious to the damage caused by sanctions on software and hardware, for instance, or on civilian aeroplanes? Likewise, does it serve the interests of the US to link every little decision to the appointment, or not, of an ambassador in Damascus?

Those who let out a sigh of relief at the election of Barack Obama, in an understandable hurry to get the Bush years behind them, are beginning to ask themselves who exactly is running the hot-and-cold show, and why Obama’s understanding of ‘engagement’ is so different to theirs, and so different to what he first proclaimed. Is the Obama administration being pushed by Israel, or is it doing the pushing? Unfortunately, the pattern so far seems to indicate an even worse scenario, one which allows for a different conductor depending on the circumstances.

Indeed, the relationship between Israel and the US is such that either’s position on a particular issue relating to Syria will be dependent on the approval, and just as importantly the support, of the other. In July 2006, during Israel’s brutal assault on Lebanon, it is said that the US, among other allies, encouraged Israel to continue the job by targeting Syria as well. As it turned out, the job was too difficult – and too irresponsible – even for Israel, which found itself unable to accomplish any of its declared goals in Lebanon, let alone extend the war beyond its borders. Cheered on by Washington, Israel nevertheless went further the following year, bombing a site in the heart of Syria and claiming it had been a nuclear reactor.

With Obama’s promise of change, it was the turn of the US to reach out and take action with Syria, as the Israelis intoned the usual mantra that there were no Palestinian partners with whom to talk, and thus to make peace (and the dreaded ‘concessions’) - a notion they dared to peddle right after the violent attack on Gaza. For a short while, the US watched as Syrians and Israelis exchanged messages through various emissaries, and announced the reappointment of an ambassador to Damascus in these circumstances. What a coincidence that the Israelis should ‘discover’ that Syria had been sending enormous Scud missiles to Hizbullah just as Syrian-American relations were about to transcend, finally, the ridiculous dead point to which they had been brought by President Bush.

Every time it looks as though Syria has found common ground with the US, Israel makes sure it keeps the two sides alienated enough for its own taste – just as the US itself has done on previous occasions. There is something strange about this shared obsession, however, which has transcended the usual parameters of engagement at any level, and which continues to be at the same time vague and terribly specific in its demeaning details.

The Obama administration is well aware that the US has gained nothing from attempted isolation, but it has shown hesitation at every step, alternating between threats, intimidation and the so-called engagement it has pretended to weave. If it were truly intending to rekindle ties with Syria, then it would approach the situation with more diplomacy, if only to gain greater influence by Syrian proxy over the regional actors for whom Syria is castigated, but who are very much part of the solution.

For all the fear mongering and loud beating of the war drums, it is difficult to believe that the US, or Israel, would really want to drag Syria into a possible new showdown with Hizbullah – not because they think that Syria could achieve a Hizbullah-style victory, but because they don’t really want Syria or its regime to fall, contrary to the advice arrogantly marketed in a number of publications.

Having managed neither its defeat nor its isolation, it seems that Syria’s opponents are focusing on its containment, as advocated by Israel’s supporters, to secure the realm with a clean break. While the central tenet of Israel’s allies remains its security and hegemony in the region, amid regimes which are either friendly or broken, the task has been rendered difficult by Turkey, France, Qatar, Russia, and even Saudi Arabia, to name but a few. They have a different perception of how the region should look, with a solid Syria in its midst.

Rime Allaf is a Syrian writer, an international consultant and an associate fellow at Chatham House inLondon