The plot to oust the Syrian regime thickens, but will those scheming against Damascus succeed in their ploys, wonders Patrick Seale Now that Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, having implemented its part of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and now that a new Lebanese government is in place committed to holding "free and fair" elections this month, is the crisis over? Can Syria hope to escape further pressures? Will a halt now be called to the international campaign against it? Nothing could be further from the truth. For Syria's main enemies, forcing Syrian troops out of Lebanon was only a means to an end. The real objective was the destabilisation of Syria itself as a step towards the overthrow of the regime. This is one of the main conclusions of a new book on Syria's young president, published in the United States last week. Its title is Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire. Its author, Flynt Leverett, worked at the CIA, at the State Department, and then at the National Security Council. Rumour has it that he was removed from his post by Eliott Abrams, an ardent "friend of Israel", when the latter took over as director for Near East Affairs at the NSA. Leverett has benefited from interviews with President Bashar Al-Assad. His book is a critique of American policy towards Syria -- and by implication of the pro-Israeli neo-conservatives who have shaped America's Middle East policy under the Bush administration. At the launch of the book in Washington last week, Leverett claimed that the American administration was moving towards a policy of "regime change" in Syria. "More and more people in the administration are inclined in that direction," he warned. "I think," he added, "that the administration has accepted an assessment of Syrian politics that, by forcing Syria out of Lebanon, this regime is not going to be able to recover from that blow and will start to unravel." In short, according to Leverett, the neo- cons believe that, if sufficient pressure is exercised on Damascus, Al-Assad will fall from the inside. Is Leverett right? Is Syria still the target of a conspiracy? And what do Syria's enemies want? In any analysis of the situation, a first step must be to distinguish between the motives of the various external actors who, in recent months, have pressured Syria to leave Lebanon. By co-sponsoring UN Security Council Resolution 1559 in conjunction with the US, France played a central role in the crisis. France seized the opportunity of the joint diplomatic initiative to ease its strained relations with Washington. But its motives were very different from those of the US. France does not seek the overthrow of President Al-Assad. Rather, French President Jacques Chirac grew impatient with the slow pace of Syria's internal reforms and was deeply offended when President Al-Assad insisted last year on extending the mandate of Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, a move which caused Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri to resign. When Al-Hariri, Chirac's close personal friend, was murdered last February, the French president was deeply affected. But France's essential aim in the crisis was not the destabilisation of Syria but the restoration of Lebanon's "sovereignty", as Foreign Minister Michel Barnier explained on a visit to Washington this week. France has been intimately involved with Lebanon since the creation of the modern state in 1920. It has considerable interests in that country which it intends to defend against all comers -- including the US. Now that Syria has pulled out its troops -- qualified by Barnier as "a good choice" -- French pre-eminence in Lebanon can be reaffirmed, while Franco-Syrian relations are likely, in turn, to be repaired in due course. The same cannot be said for US-Syrian relations. For Washington's neo-conservatives -- anxious to re-model the Middle East to suit American and Israeli interests -- Syria lies at the centre of a hostile network, which includes the insurgents in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Hizbullah in Lebanon, in addition to Syria itself. For the network to collapse the Syrian regime must be overthrown. The ongoing insurgency in Iraq has proved to be the main obstacle to the neo-con fantasy of a "reformed" and "democratised" Middle East, unable to challenge US and Israeli strategic goals. Instead of proving a democratic model for the region, a shattered Iraq has sunk into a morass of lawlessness and violence. It is now clear for all to see that the US occupation is in deep trouble. There is no sign that the insurgency is being brought under control. Even though fewer American troops are being killed than a few months ago, the insurgents are now directing their ferocious attacks on American "collaborators", notably on the embryonic Iraqi army and police. They are being killed almost as fast as their American instructors are training them. As a result, the idea has taken root in some circles in Washington that there can be no victory in Iraq until Syria and Iran -- seen as supplying a "rear base" for the insurgency -- are brought to heel. As Washington seems reluctant to launch a military attack against Iran, recognised as a hard nut to crack, an alternative course is "regime change" in Syria. The neo-cons argue that a pro-American government in Damascus would result in the isolation, encirclement and neutralisation of Iran. Israel applauded the American invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent destruction of that country. It removed for the foreseeable future any possibility of a hostile "Eastern Front" directed at the Jewish state. In the same way, Israel has been quick to express its immense satisfaction at Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, which it sees as an important step towards its main objective -- the disarming of Hizbullah. Israel has a score to settle with Hizbullah: the Shia guerrilla force drove Israel out of South Lebanon in 2000, after a 22-year occupation. Today, Israel fears that Hizbullah will continue to play a dual role -- as an instrument for continued Syrian influence in Lebanon and as an obstacle to any attempt by Israel to infiltrate itself back into Lebanese affairs. Some Israelis -- perhaps even including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- dream of a replay of the events of 1983 when, after the Israeli invasion a year earlier, Lebanon was induced to sign a separate peace with Israel. It held for a short while until it was aborted by Syria and its local allies. Might an opportunity for a separate peace arise again? Israel would seize it, while Syria would do everything in its power to prevent it. Needless to say, Israel would welcome continued US pressure on the regime in Damascus, or indeed any scenario of chaos which might follow its overthrow. Weakening Syria would create opportunities for Israel in Lebanon, while at the same time strengthening its hand in any future dealings with Syria itself. In the meantime, it would delay or remove altogether any international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. The word from Washington is that the US has strongly advised Prime Minister Sharon not to enter into peace negotiations with President Al-Assad. Perhaps the neo-cons believe a different regime in Damascus would create a more favourable climate for such talks! If this is indeed an accurate analysis of the present situation, then the Syrian regime must expect a renewed assault by its enemies. It remains in extreme danger. But what if the whole neo-con programme for the Middle East were profoundly mistaken? The balance-sheet so far is heavily in debit. America's occupation of Iraq and Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories -- both illegal and immoral enterprises -- have been condemned by much of the world. Both countries stand accused in the court of public opinion. Each has been corrupted by its occupation and seen its reputation irredeemably tarnished by the harsh, repressive and trigger-happy behaviour of its soldiers. Rather than seek fresh adventures, each should now pull back to safer ground.
