Syria's Opposition to
American Interests in the Middle East
October 8, 2003
By Jonathan Eric Lewis
Immediately after September 11th, segments of
the American foreign policy establishment hoped to
include Syria, given its brutal suppression of the
Muslim Brotherhood, in the anti-terror coalition against
Al-Qaeda. Indeed, for a time, it did appear that
Damascus might have provided some useful information to
American intelligence that prevented an Al-Qaeda attack
in the Persian Gulf. Nevertheless, in the last year, it
has become abundantly clear that Syria is acting in
numerous ways that are completely detrimental to
American national interests in the Middle East. It is
thus time that illusions about Syria’s intentions are
put to rest.
Syria’s
support for myriad terrorist groups, its chemical weapons programs, the
promotion of anti-Americanism in its state-run media and its facilitation of
foreign fighters into Iraq to
attack American servicemen are all diametrically opposed to
Washington’s
interests for stability in both
Iraq and in Israel. Syrian nationals, it should be noted, currently
constitute the largest number of foreign fighters held in coalition custody
in Iraq and are a threat to both the lives of American servicemen and to
American success in nation building.
The revelations of
espionage at Guantanamo Bay
only bolster the case against Damascus. The detained Islamic chaplain
accusing of breaching security, Yousef Yee, studied Islam in Syria in the
1990s, while Ahmad Al-Halabi, the Syrian-born airman charged with espionage,
has been accused of failing to report unauthorized contacts with the Syrian
Embassy and of planning to pass military secrets to Syria or to a group
operating out of Syria. This has prompted Washington to investigate whether
Syria is actively involved in espionage against the United States.
Syria’s
support for Palestinian terrorist organizations and for Hezbollah is
completely antithetical to American policy.
Damascus realizes that a continuation of
Israeli-Palestinian violence and the lack of a viable peace process will
further anti-American sentiment in the region, particularly when a terrorist
attack leads to an Israeli retaliatory strike. Islamic Jihad, the most
violent and implacably anti-Zionist of the Palestinian militias, directs
Palestinian attacks from Damascus and deliberately hampers any effort toward
a two-state solution. It is for this reason that, following the suicide
bombing by Islamic Jihad on October 4, the Israeli military retaliated
against a terrorist training base in Syria. Hezbollah’s continual
provocations against northern Israel, on the other hand, serve to perpetuate
a constant state of potential crisis in the
Levant.
The most serious
allegations, however, concern Syria’s biological and chemical weapons
programs. Testifying before the House International Relations Committee
last month, Undersecretary of State John Bolton cited Damascus’s stockpile
of sarin gas and its research and development of VX nerve gas. He likewise
cited the belief that Syria is developing an offensive biological weapons
capability. Bolton also mentioned
Syria’s draft program on
cooperation on civil nuclear power with Russia and its development, with
North Korean help, of the Scud D missile.
Given the failure of
arms inspectors to find Iraqi WMD, however, Washington would be well advised
not to make Syrian unconventional weapons programs, as worrisome as they
are, as large an issue as its aforementioned support for international
terrorism, its possible role in espionage and its continued violation of
Lebanese sovereignty. In the form of the Syrian Accountability Act, the
United States has a major diplomatic resource at its disposal to rebuke
Damascus for its continual thwarting of American national interests. This
bipartisan piece of legislation seeks to place sanctions on Damascus for its
rogue behavior and is supported by numerous Lebanese-American organizations.
The passage of the
Syria Accountability Act, which is already gaining support in Congress and
is no longer being actively opposed by the White House, could demonstrate
that Washington need not rely solely on military force to foster change in
the Middle East. Given the fact that anti-Syrian sentiment in Lebanon is
only increasing, Washington could use the passage of this legislation to
demonstrate to the Lebanese population of all ethnic and sectarian groups
that the United States is serious about fostering change not merely through
the barrel of a gun. This would serve to counter the oft-reported claim
that Washington’s primary reason for the occupation of Iraq is to control
the country’s oil.
Given Syria’s
numerous actions that are directly opposed to American national interests in
the Middle East, it is no longer plausible to believe that Syria remains a
potential ally in the war on terror and that secular Ba’athism is inherently
opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Given Syria’s support for Palestinian
terrorist organizations, weapons ties with
North Korea,
facilitation of foreign fighters into Iraq and possible espionage against
the United States, no one should seriously continue to view Damascus as a
troublesome, but errant, “ally.”
Sanctions might make
Syria reconsider its behavior. They might actually persuade Damascus that
it has far too much to lose by its continual anti-American activities and by
its perpetuation of Israeli-Palestinian violence. Indeed, given the
miserable state of the Syrian economy and the fact that Syria, apart from
Iran, really has no friends in the region, the United States has a great
deal to gain from flexing its diplomatic muscle against Damascus and in
persuading fellow NATO member states that they should reconsider their own
relations with Syria.
Jonathan Eric Lewis is
a New York-based writer and political analyst and is the author of a
forthcoming study of Middle Eastern ethnic and religious minorities. He has
written previously for
In the National
Interest on the Shiite challenge for American interests. (http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue17/vol2issue17Lewispfv.html).
|