Detlev Mehlis' initial report on the assassination of Rafik Al-Hariri raises new political scenarios in the Middle East. Al-Ahram Weekly provides special in-depth coverage and expert analysis on the various political and legal issues stemming from the investigation's findings After Mehlis What happens in Syria depends on the outcome of the battle being fought in Washington between the Republican old-guard and the neoconservatives, writes Emad Fawzi Shueibi* Where are US-Syrian relations heading given the kind of pressures Washington has been exerting on Damascus? It is a crucial question, and one impossible to answer if we fail to take into account the tug of war currently taking place in Washington as the old-guard conservatives of Bush Senior's generation seek to clip the wings of the neoconservatives surrounding Bush junior. That tug of war looks increasingly as if it might be resolved in a deal though not one -- as much of the US media will have it -- with the allegedly discredited Syrian regime. The deal that is emerging is, rather, a purely internal US affair, and aims at allowing a disengagement of US forces in Iraq. Disengagement should not be seen as tantamount to a withdrawal since US troops are most likely to withdraw to safe bases inside Iraq. The deal will be between "rational" old-guard conservatives and Bush Junior, and its goal is to curb the tendency towards reckless adventurism by reducing the influence of neoconservatives on foreign policy and sideline such concepts as "constructive chaos". For the deal to work, though, a number of problems must be overcome, not least the desire of some neoconservatives to "Cambodianise" the Iraqi question. Just as the US attempted to find a way out of the quagmire it had created in Vietnam by bombing Cambodia, some neoconservatives now want to "escape forward" from Iraq by unleashing preemptive antiterrorist strikes against Syria. That such an option remains open was made clear when the US military attaché in Damascus was instructed not to take part in a tour the Syrian government had arranged for foreign diplomats in order to show them the improvements it had made in security arrangements along the Syrian- Iraqi border. Had the military attaché taken part he would have been obliged to report on the improvements to the state and defence departments, reducing the latter's ability to justify any possible action against Syria. The neoconservatives believe that strikes against Syria, launched from afar and in the context of the war against terror, need neither Congressional approval nor a particularly hard-sell to the American public. This is not the opinion of old-guard conservatives and a large number, though not a majority, of Congress members. More importantly, the neoconservatives themselves are divided over the issue. How it is resolved will depend to a large extent on the outcome of the current storms in Washington, at the centre of which is one of the most important neoconservative cheerleaders -- Vice President Dick Cheney. A recent report in the Executive Intelligence Review suggests that when the Washington Post -- for decades the mouthpiece of the US ruling establishment -- points to the likelihood that the office of the vice president was involved in the scandal over the leaking of the name of a CIA agent to the press then a deal, in which the old-guard has emerged victorious, has already been done. According to the report the old-guard's campaign began as follows: on 29 September General William Odom, former chief of the National Security Agency, joined Republican Representative William Jones, Democratic Representative Neil Abercrombie and other House of Representative members in a press conference to promote a bill calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Describing the invasion of Iraq as "the biggest strategic disaster in the history of the United States" Odom said that it would take a huge alliance of America's allies in Europe and Asia to set things right. The fundamental condition for developing a serious strategy for establishing security in the region, Odom continued, is for the US to withdraw from Iraq and acknowledge the wrong it had committed. Odom rejected the Bush administration's argument that the withdrawal of US forces would lead to civil war in Iraq. There already is civil war, he said. "Militias fighting American forces have killed far more Iraqis than they have Americans. That is civil war. We created civil war when we invaded the country. We won't be able to stop civil war by staying there." For good measure, he added that US-British forces would face an armed Shia uprising in southern and central Iraq if the Bush administration pressed ahead with its plans for a military operation against Iran. The campaign then began to progress through legal channels as indictments were served against Larry Franklin, an Israeli spy in the employ of the Pentagon, and two officials from the American- Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on charges of passing confidential information to Israel. Franklin confessed and agreed to cooperate with the attorney-general. It is anticipated that the information he provides will uncover a vast network of agents within the Department of Defense and the Bush administration. In late September and early October two indictments were issued against Tom DeLay, House of Representatives Republican majority leader and one of Cheney's closest associates. DeLay is accused of money laundering and involvement in a scheme involving Mafia-run gambling establishments that channelled corporate donations into Republican campaign funds. The first of the two indictments forced DeLay to step down as Republican majority leader. A range of other indictments have been issued against Republican fundraisers, most notable among them Jack Abramoff. The Washington lobbyist has been charged with fraud and conspiracy in connection with his takeover of SunCruz Casinos, which operates a fleet of gambling boats. There is a possibility that Abramoff may also be indicted for the murder of the original owner of the casino company, Konstantinos Boulis, who was gunned down in a gangland-style killing after having refused Abramoff's takeover bid. But the decisive blow against the Bush administration will be struck if it can be shown that Vice President Cheney was directly involved in leaking the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, the wife of US diplomat Joe Wilson, to the press. Under US law such a disclosure is regarded as treasonable. In June 2003 Plame's name, and the nature of her work, was revealed to the press. The leak was interpreted as an attack against her husband who, a few months after the invasion of Iraq, publicly refuted the Bush administration's claim that evidence existed that Iraq had imported nuclear grade uranium from Niger. In July 2003 Wilson told the New York Times that in 2002 he had been asked by the CIA to travel to Niger to ascertain the veracity of documents -- later shown to have been forged -- suggesting that Iraq had imported quantities of uranium from Niger. When he returned to Washington Wilson informed the CIA that there was no evidence to back the claims. The Bush administration deliberately ignored his report and stuck to the story in the run up to the invasion. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been investigating the Plame leak for months. In the course of his investigations New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in prison for refusing to name her source in the White House. She was released in September on condition she provide the name. That person, it transpired, was Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief-of- staff, a leading neoconservative who has advocated invading Syria. It was also established that Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, also leaked information to the press regarding Valerie Plame. The Executive Intelligence Review long suspected Cheney and Libby of involvement in what is now being called Plamegate. The trail in this scandal clearly led to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), whose first and foremost responsibility was to plan the invasion of Iraq regardless of the illegalities involved. In addition to Libby and Rove the group comprised Bush's Chief- of-Staff Andrew Card, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and White House adviser Karen Hughes alongside half a dozen White House and National Security Council officials. Some are hoping that Cheney will be forced to tender his resignation, though that is far from being a foregone conclusion. Sensing this danger Cheney and Rumsfeld might try to outrun their pursuers to Cambodia. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Cheney and his aides have been concocting scenarios for military operations against Syria and Iran in order to divert attention away from his personal dilemmas and the disaster of the administration's policy in Iraq. In Reason of 11 August 2005, Michael Young observed that statements issued by neoconservative officials have been heading ever more clearly towards the "Cambodianisation" of Syria. In August Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld warned that Syria was "without a doubt funding the insurgence in Iraq". That same day John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN and another neo-con fanatic, urged all nations to "implement obligations to stop the flow of money and arms to terrorists, especially to Iran and Syria". True, such statements are not a declaration of war. They do, however, constitute fighting words, as the Americans say. Young believes that the neoconservatives have come to the conclusion that the US does not possess the means to take on Iran militarily and that they have therefore set their sights on Syria. But does this mean their Syria scenario is once again on the cards? It is impossible to say. At the moment things are so fluid that no possibility can be discounted Meanwhile, the Syrians are playing for time. They are not, however, playing at brinksmanship. They know that the White House is in crisis and that decision-making circles within the administration are at odds with themselves. They are not making concessions, but then neither are they adopting firm positions. The stakes, quite simply, are too high. Much depends on what happens in Washington. Until the Mehlis stick is brought into the game Damascus has time in which to manoeuvre. The Syrians are not gamblers; they know they are caught in a game in which they will have to make some critical choices. When the time comes for them to pull out of the game they will cut their losses and leave: their primary objective, after all, is to sustain Syria's regional role for without it Damascus has no hope of regaining its occupied territory or of maintaining domestic stability. * The writer is professor of political science at Damascus University.
