The situation in Saddam’s Iraq may have been resolved but the situation of surrounding countries has not. Let us pause here and remember the great philosopher Hegel, who said that geography is more factually stable than politics.
Even before the American tanks had finished their tour of Baghdad, headlines made the jump to Damascus in a clear and deliberate escalation by the American government. The Syrian development is part of the larger plan and is linked to Iraq. It is wrong to compare it to Afghanistan, a geographically marginal country compared to Iraq which is right in the center of an internationally active and unsettled region. Its neighbors are large and influential countries such as Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Gulf countries, and Israel and Jordan across the river.
When the Americans singled out Iraq for military change, they did it on the pretext that it would be a springboard for regional influence or perhaps even change. In Baghdad that influence could be confined to making the country an example, to humiliate everyone, to reinforce its role in resolving old differences with Iran and to partly solve the Kurdish problem and to get rid of the leaders of extremism in the region as a way of solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Or it could be to turn Baghdad into a school to teach Arabs about democracy. Or it could be a police station to discipline those who have gone outside the law.
The Americans will need a long time to fix the Iraqi situation before they can turn their attention beyond its borders. Noteworthy though the targeting of Syria is as part of a concerted campaign, it doesn’t look like a separate project but an addendum to the Iraqi one — hence the chemical weapons charge.
The Americans say that Syria is the party that has chosen confrontation and that it was not on its list. They accuse it of heading the pro-Iraqi Arab opposition in Sharm El-Sheikh and later. Washington was also worried by a number of statements that came out of Lebanon from those obedient to Syria. They claim that Syria embroiled itself in this situation by allowing military convoys to pass into Iraq prior to the war as well as allowing Iraqis to enter Syria during the war. Syria thus made itself party to the war. It was the only Arab nation that spoke out against the Americans. No other Arab country entered into confrontation with the invading power in order to satisfy the angry street to the same extent.
If the crisis isn’t resolved quickly it will go out of control, especially in light of the presence of a third of a million American soldiers very close to Syria and an American president whose appetite for war seems undiminished.
Why have the Syrians set themselves up as targets when all Damascus’ fiery statements against Washington will achieve is play into the hands of Israel’s plans for the region? The US has warned Damascus a number of times before and during the war — but Damascus didn’t listen. Today the situation is an extremely dangerous one: The international community is unable to rein in Washington after its quick victory, which disappointed many — including the Europeans and the Russians, who quickly set about correcting their stand and congratulating Washington on its victory over tyranny.
The Iraqi event is a significant one geographically, and will leave its mark on the region as a whole. The only way to solve the Iraqi earthquake is by absorbing, not by confronting, it. Iran, the most obstinate country, seemed more pliable. Despite having been included in the “axis of evil”, it has acted quickly and decided to open the door for communication with America.
The truce between Tehran and America shocked a Jordanian Islamic opposition leader called Laith Chubailat who issued a statement describing it as dishonorable.
He did not realize that the Iranians would rather protect their own interests than listen to him and his ilk. They are not stupid enough to do what Saddam did — open the door, invite him in and listen to what he has to say. We all know how that story ended.
Arab News Opinion 19 April 2003
