The recent Syrian-Iraqi détente that surprised many political observers did not last long. It ended following the Iraqi accusation that Damascus was harbouring terrorists involved in the recent bloody Baghdad explosions. The editorial of the London-based independent political daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi wrote that the increasing tension between Iraq and Syria indicates that the present Turkish and Iranian mediation had not achieved any tangible results. The crisis between the two states started when Iraqi Prime Minster Nuri Al-Maliki accused Syria of supporting "bloody Wednesday" explosions that killed 100 and injured 1,000 Iraqis in Baghdad. Not only were these accusations unfounded but coincided with Al-Maliki's decision to withdraw his ambassador from Damascus. As a result the Syrian president was furious when he described Al-Maliki's accusations as "immoral". The editorial ascribed his fury to the belief that he was deceived by Al-Maliki who signed a number of economic and security pacts with Damascus just one day before the explosions. The edit added that investigations showed that two suspects were detained by US troops in Baghdad which shows that the explosions were planned inside Iraq and with US help. "Al-Maliki's problem is internal first and foremost. His security failure is due to a conflict with the Shia coalition which helped him to become prime minister. Thus any attempt to find a scapegoat in Syria is unconvincing," the edit said. Mustafa Zein wrote there was a red line in Syrian-Iraqi détente because it changes the shape of the region. It was banned under the Baath Party because it threatened the interests of the US, Europe and a few Arab states. It was banned under the Iranian Shah because it jeopardised the Turkish-Iranian-Israeli coalitions then and it is banned now because Iraq joining the Syrian-Iranian coalition would create an imbalance in the region. Without doubt, as Zein added, Syria is interfering in Iraqi affairs. Actually, it would be strange if it did not when there are 150,000 US soldiers on its borders. However, there is a difference between political intervention or supporting the resistance and getting involved in a terrorist act. The writer questioned why Al-Maliki accused Damascus and threatened to resort to the Security Council just one week after signing strategic pacts with Syria. He regarded the timing as a very important matter especially given that Al-Maliki does not take any action except after consulting with the US. "Any Syrian-Iraqi détente or coalition with Iran is definitely not in the US interest. Washington will try to thwart any attempt in that direction even if that requires launching another war to preserve the balance in the region," Zein wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat. Mamdouh Taha hailed Arab League Secretary- General Amr Moussa's quick contacts with Iraqi and Syrian officials to contain the sudden and unwise escalation of tension between the two states. Surprisingly enough, as the writer added, although "the Iraqi Islamic state" declared responsibility for the explosions, a series of unfounded accusations among conflicting parties were made. The well-planned explosions aimed at hampering bilateral Syrian-Iraqi strategic cooperation and ignite political, religious and sectarian strife. The explosions came after a series of meetings that boosted Syrian-Turkish-Iranian-Iraqi cooperation. Taha asked who would be interested in thwarting regional cooperation. "The blasts aimed at reigniting political and sectarian strife and prove that the Iraqi security forces failed to achieve security in the most protected area in the Iraqi capital," Taha wrote in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan. Thus, he continued, it would cast doubt on the ability of the Iraqi forces to protect Iraq and necessitates the return of US troops to secure the coming elections. In addition it will affect the results of the election by proving that Al-Maliki failed on the political and security levels. Taha concluded by asking who are the internal parties that are interested in achieving all these goals. The editorial of the Tunisian daily Al-Shorouq assumed that the explosions were planned ahead, as soon as US troops withdrew from Iraqi cities. And as usual, Al-Maliki's government accused other Iraqi parties like the Baath, not to mention Al-Qaeda and neighbouring countries, of financing and carrying out the explosions. This accusation reflects the depth of the crisis among the Iraqi parties involved in the political process and raises fear over the future of Iraq especially when these parties fail to agree on anything. In addition to these strange accusations, the government directed accusations towards the Syrian government at a time when diplomatic relations between the two states were gradually improving. It seems that the present Iraqi government is trying to put the blame for its failure on Syria. But in reality "Iraq is suffering from continuous anarchy, inability to rebuild the country, conflict between parties that have nothing in common, and an absence of control of armed groups." Wafiq Al-Samerae wrote that following the recent tension in the Syrian-Iraqi relationship, was it possible for Baathist leaders to launch such a horrific explosion without the knowledge of the Syrian intelligence, or is it possible that Syria could involve itself in such an attack at a time when there are signs of improvement in its relationship with the US and the West in general after the US withdrew its troops from Iraqi cities? The logical answer is no. "The Iraqi accusation cannot conform with the present Syrian stand according to which the Syrian leadership received an Iraqi delegation headed by Al-Maliki and signed strategic pacts that are of interest to the two states," Al-Samerae wrote in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat . A rift between the two states is not possible as tension in the relationship -- which lasted from 1979 to 1996 -- left repercussions on all levels in both states. The fact that one million Iraqis live in Syria make a complete rift impossible. Their return to Iraq indicates the conclusion of real national reconciliation. But staying in Syria is an indication of instability inside Iraq. However, in all cases, terrorism should be denounced and confronted. Security coordination and cooperation between Iraq, Syria and other Arab states housing Iraqis could provide suitable conditions for the return of Iraqis to their homes. Their return can be achieved via a series of practical measures that boost the sense of security, Al-Samerae summed up.
