'Where is Damascus going?'

by Musa Keilani

There seems to be a clash of wills between the US and Israel over Lebanon. As reports in The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor indicate, the US has told Israeli leaders not to comment on developments in Lebanon triggered by the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Washington is also tilted towards accepting the existence of Hizbollah as a group representing the Shiite majority in Lebanon, whereas Israel seems to be itching for military action against Hizbollah, which remains a major challenge to Israel across its southern border.

Not that the clash of wills matters in the long run for either side. It is clear that the US and Israeli objective is to cut the Syrian-Lebanese bond and make Lebanon sign a "peace" accord that would leave Syria as the last holdout in the Arab camp against accepting the Israeli state as a member of the regional order.

Regardless of Hizbollah's representation in government, it is certain that the group will put up strong resistance to any such move. Whatever government - pro-US, neutral, pro-Syrian or of any other shade - emerges from the May elections in Lebanon, it will not be able to push the country into any direction that is not in conformity with the Hizbollah agenda. It should not be forgotten that it was Syrian restraint that kept Hizbollah's strength in the current parliament down at nine, since Damascus did not want the group to be in any position to dictate terms.

It is apparent that the US is not ready for military action against Hizbollah at this point in time. Washington has already persuaded the European Parliament to brand Hizbollah as a "terrorist" group in a non-binding resolution adopted by a big majority. Obviously, Washington has opted to use diplomacy to tighten pressure on Hizbollah, whereas Israel is ready with its firepower to "take out" Hizbollah positions near the border and beyond.

It is safe to assume that Hizbollah will refuse to be intimidated by such tactics. It has the organisational ability and commitment to stick to its guns and make things partially unbearable for Israel if it chooses to do so. Underestimating the prowess of Hizbollah would be another American blunder as serious as its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Obviously, the US seems to have understood the implications of "taking on" Hizbollah, hence its option to go ahead on the diplomatic track and seek to contain the group rather than openly confront it at this point in time. However, that approach clashes with the Israeli desire to stamp out Hizbollah as a military force that could keep the border boiling, posing serious threats to Israeli settlements near the frontier. Indeed, destabilising Syria goes hand in hand with whatever the US is trying to do in Lebanon.

The European Parliament resolution adopted on Thursday renewed a call for Syria to withdraw its troops and intelligence services from Lebanon. The European Union has been facing pressure from the US and Israel to add Hizbollah on its list of outlawed "terrorist" organisations, but many EU countries are reluctant to do so since they are aware that Hizbollah is not a marginal group but a solid force that represents the Shiite majority of Lebanon. The Europeans are also aware of the social programmes and welfare services that Hizbollah runs in Lebanon. It is widely accepted that without such Hizbollah programmes and services, discontent among the Shiite community would spill over and create major problems for the Lebanese government.

It is obvious that Washington has sensed a Syrian willingness to withdraw from Lebanon, that was emphasised on Friday when the Syrian units deployed in north Lebanon crossed the border to the Syrian side. Sceptics would even believe that a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon might disappoint the US since that would deprive Washington of an ace that it could have used to isolate Damascus through the UN.

The partial Syrian withdrawal from north Lebanon came ahead of the arrival in Damascus of UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen on Saturday, reportedly carrying an ultimatum to the Syrian government that failing complete pullout from Lebanon, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will call for a Security Council session in April to approve sanctions against Syria.

According to The New York Times, Roed-Larsen was to tell Syria that the international community is united in insisting that Damascus comply with UN Resolution 1559 - and is prepared to impose wide punitive sanctions if it does not act quickly. He had already held talks with senior American, European and Arab officials on Syria, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, with a view to blocking all "escape routes" for Syria.

In the meantime, reports from Iraq's Talabani circles indicate that the US is also said to be working with Syrian Kurdish dissidents to start a protest movement against the Syrian government. The dissidents are said to be poised to stage demonstrations backed by US and Iraqi Kurds to mark the first anniversary of their "Kamishli uprising". More Syrian opposition factions, residing in London, Europe and some Arab capitals who are enlisted by the US are expected to join the protest.

If we take at face value the reports that US intelligence agents are involved in stirring up internal trouble for the Syrian government, then it appears that Washington is following the same plans that it reportedly has drawn for "regime change" in Iran. It means that the US will throw its weight behind Syrian dissidents to build opposition against the government in Damascus and seek to use "people's power" to topple the regime. The Syrian leadership appears to have sensed the game plan. That was the message that came out of the demonstrations held in Damascus in support of the government and its policies. It was perhaps the Syrian way of telling the US that stirring up internal dissent against the Damascus government would not work.

Whatever side the coin falls, one thing is clear: many more days of instability are in store for the Middle East as a result of covert and public American actions, and it is ironic for us to hear Washington talk about its concern that others are creating chaos and contributing to keeping the region unstable.

With all the scenarios in the region, a main question remains valid: Quo vade Damascus?

This article was published in the Sunday, March 13, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.