The "Syria-next" scenario has been avoided thanks to the efforts of President Bashar Al-Assad this week, writes Sami Moubayed in Damascus The crisis between Damascus and Washington has apparently been solved without war, invasion, or United Nations inspectors. In Syria itself, even though nobody believed that war was in the horizon, people were worried nevertheless. The alarming part of the psychological war was an article published in The Guardian revealing that Donald Rumsfeld had asked his generals to draw up a military plan for war against Syria. This proposal was vetoed by President Bush, but the fact that it existed is alarming for Syria. Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar hurried to condemn the United States war of words on Damascus, forcing Colin Powell to declare, "There is no war plan right now to attack someone else." This shift in US rhetoric can be attributed to Al-Assad, who was described by Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, who met him this week in Damascus, as "a very responsible international player -- constructive and pragmatic". These are the traits that Saddam Hussein lacked. Syria is not Iraq and Bashar Al-Assad is not Saddam Hussein. Syria is not an isolated country and its government, unlike the former Iraqi one, is recognised and respected throughout the world. Syria supported the US war on terror and aided the FBI in tracking down Islamists throughout the world linked to Osama Bin Laden. Syria took part in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, fighting alongside the US, and also took part in peace talks at Madrid and in Washington, under the auspices of the US, and hosted American presidents like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Bashar Al-Assad has hosted world leaders in Damascus, ranging from Fidel Castro, to Tony Blair and Pope John Paul II. He has also insisted on portraying his country as pro-West, though not pro-American, evidence of which is his friendship with France, his alliance with Russia, and the high profile visit he made to the United Kingdom shortly before the war on Iraq. While Saddam has been around too long and has persecuted too many of his countrymen, Al- Assad is young and enjoys popularity in Syria. The opposition in Syria, both those living at home and abroad, are unlike the Iraqi opposition since they are unwilling to collaborate with the USA against their own government. With no allies in Syria willing to support the US and none in the international community willing to join a new US-led alliance, the chances of Rumsfeld succeeding in a war on Syria are not slim -- they are nigh on impossible. That is why early on, US officials rushed to explain that they did not want to change the Syrian government, as some media sources in Israel and America had predicted, but rather, wanted to cooperate with it on certain issues. Once the war-tone had disappeared, Syria showed willingness to talk and began to comply with US demands; it has closed the border with Iraq, distanced itself completely from Saddam Hussein (it was never close to him to begin with) and it has called for a UN resolution to disarm all countries in the Middle East of chemical and biological weapons. By doing this, Syria has proven its dedication to making the region a safe place, but has also placed the US in a tight spot. How can Washington say no to such a proposal when it is demanding a safe Middle East, and yet disarm Israel, the country it has been arming for decades? The US simply has no case against Syria. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Syria. And even if there were, there is no law in the world that prevents Syria from producing or advancing chemical weapons. Syria does not threaten its neighbours and cannot possibly be accused of harbouring "terrorist organisations" like Al-Qa'eda since Syria is at odds with Islamic fundamentalism -- more so perhaps, than the US itself. The accusations that Syria welcomed Iraqi leaders is also ludicrous, since Syria did not support the Iraqi regime when it was in power, so how can it be expected to support it today? Saddam Hussein personally planned and funded attacks against Syria by Abu-Nidal, a Palestinian terrorist living in Iraq in 1976, and welcomed scores of Syrian opposition leaders in the 1980s. Why would Syria welcome him, his family, or his regime today? Syria is not a threat to Lebanon because its troops are in Lebanon by agreement between the Syrian and Lebanese government. The Syrian Army entered Lebanon in 1976 to help end the civil war. If the current government asks Syria to leave, Syria will leave. The only argument that can be used against Syria is its sponsorship of Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, since these are the direct enemies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This last case is an Israeli one and is not included on the urgent White House agenda. If Syria manages to appease Washington by responding to the other issues, as it has been doing for the past week, then the White House will turn a blind eye to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. After all, as Al-Assad always said, these two groups only have media offices in Syria. They do not have the means to transport weapons to Palestine (since the borders are monitored by Israel) and not even to communicate with their supporters in the West Bank and Gaza since there is no telephone network linking Syria (or Lebanon) with the occupied territories. I know the offices of Hamas in Syria and have frequently visited Khaled Meshal -- the only thing they do in Syria is give interviews, publicise their cause through rallies and issue press releases. Washington knows this and realises that these activities do not threaten the national security of Israel. The key to containing the Palestinian resistance lies with Abu-Mazen and Yasser Arafat, and this explains why so much diplomatic effort has been put in by the US with regard to the upcoming Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas. Syria alone holds the keys to Hizbullah. It will not dismantle or abandon Hizbullah and knows that Washington will not go to war to force it do so. The US fears that if it upsets Damascus, Syria would adopt a resistance movement similar to Hizbullah in South Lebanon. This would terrify the Americans and eject them from Iraq in a manner similar to the Israeli exodus in 2000. Nothing terrifies the USA more than suicide bombers against its troops in Iraq. This would damage its colonial ambitions and kill whatever support the occupation currently enjoys in the US. This explains why the crisis has been solved, as dramatically and rapidly as it unfolded on 9 April 2003. To put it simply, the US requires Syria for a stable Middle East.
