By Salama A Salama The prospects for the Damascus summit were gloomy right from the start. Presidents vowed to stay away. Pundits predicted a resounding failure and the summit didn't let them down. It reproduced everything that is inane and pathetic in Arab politics. An Arab initiative that Israel trampled underfoot was revived. An ineffective promise to resolve the Lebanese crisis was reiterated. For icing on the cake, everyone lauded the initiative Ali Abdullah Saleh made possible for reconciling Hamas and Fatah, even though the Yemeni president didn't bother to show up in Damascus. Perhaps he's had enough, and who's to blame him? The only good thing about the conference is that it reminded us in no uncertain terms of the sorry state of Arab affairs. You'd think that the last thing we need is a reminder, but apparently we do. In today's world, Arab leaders, or at least some, no longer see the Arab- Israeli conflict as the main threat to peace in the region. So much the summit has made clear. It's all about Lebanon now, and how the Syrians are apparently robbing it of its peace of mind. Obviously, the fact that Lebanon is short of a president is worse than Israel's threats to the region. We're now worried about a new regional axis in the making, an unholy alliance between Syria and Iran that is stretching its evil tentacles all over the bloated Arab body. Iran and Syria are not only challenging US omnipotence; they are holding back a happy ending in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, or so we're led to believe. I don't know when this shift in perception exactly took place. No one is explaining it -- not even in the cheap articles filling government-run papers with anti-Syrian propaganda. Since when did the Lebanese need the Syrians to get on each other's case? And do the Lebanese really want the Syrians to meddle in their affairs? No one has cared to explain. Furthermore, why exactly is it better for Arab "moderate" countries to join a US- Israeli alliance than an Iranian-Syrian one? Haven't we made enough concessions already in the hope that things would get better in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq? Is it really that bad to let Iran and Syria have their way for a change? Has it not been clear since Annapolis that the Americans have no interest in resolving the Palestinian issue? Forget Arab solidarity. Had Arab solidarity been real, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have sided with Syria in a quest for an independent pan-Arab policy, one that keeps our options open and our interests intact. The sorry image that unfolded in the recent summit will only tempt the Bush administration to try another adventure. The US, in alliance with Israel, may decide to act. They have been dying to strike at Iran's nuclear programme. And they know they have the blessing of Germany, France and the rest of Europe. For now, everyone seems in agreement that a strike against Iran would keep Hizbullah and Hamas at bay. A strike against Iran, many believe, would kick start a new regional order where everything would go exactly as the US and Israel have planned all along. For example, the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas would be able to regain control of Gaza. And the illusion of the two-state solution would be complete, even before the end of Bush's term. Once Iran is out of the picture, the Americans will have little trouble setting up permanent military bases in Iraq and everyone would be happy. Right? You think this is all far- fetched? Well, not more far- fetched than the recent summit.
