While preparations for the Middle East peace conference are in full swing, Doaa El-Bey finds worrying signs of possible conflict in the region While efforts are being exerted to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the crisis in Iraq, there are clear signs that the US is opening another front for war in the Middle East. The Israeli aerial invasion of Syrian territory was regarded by political commentators as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and a serious sign of an impending confrontation. However, the Syrian daily Tishreen wrote in its editorial that the invasion did not surprise Damascus since it knows that Syria has always been the first target of Israeli aggression. The editorial questioned why the air raid had come at a time when all the parties concerned are preparing for the peace conference likely to be held in the autumn. "The Israeli raid on Syrian land is a mere test for the so-called 'moderate states' to examine their moderation ahead of the peace conference which is dedicated entirely to normalisation with Israel as Israeli officials have declared," the editorial read, adding that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the conference aimed at gathering the biggest number of Arab states with Israel. Maamoun Fendi questioned whether another war in the region is imminent. In the London- based daily Asharq Al-Awsat, Fendi drew five different scenarios for war in the region, the first of which would be between Syria and Israel. He wrote it was clear that mutual mistrust characterises the relationship between the two states. After the latest Israeli incursion, the two countries hushed up on what had happened, which contributed to increasing the state of mistrust between the two states and which now could lead to war. The present tension, according to Fendi, makes the region closer to war than peace ahead of the peace conference. "The peace conference is probably the reason that pushed Israel into the Syrian incident, in order to escape from the peace responsibilities that the US could impose on Tel Aviv in the conference... nearing the end of his second term, President George Bush will try to push for the establishment of two states," he wrote. The other scenario is related to the Iranian nuclear programme and envisages a possible US strike against Iran. In that case, Iran would try to respond through Hizbullah. Syria could be involved in such a conflict especially if Iran decided to launch a "proxy war" against US troops through its followers in Iraq. In the current tense atmosphere in the Middle East, the repeated threats to Iran of a possible US strike is another warning sign that could plunge the region into more conflict. Thus, Ismail Agwa called for a united and decisive Arab and Islamic stand against what he described was a US-Israeli conspiracy against Iran and Syria. The most dangerous thing in such a conspiracy, wrote Agwa in the Lebanese daily Al-Manar, is that the US and Israel provoke some parties in the region and form axes and coalitions against them only because they are Islamic states who have refused to bow to American hegemony and humiliating Israeli policies. "The conspiracy calls for a genuine and serious Arab and Islamic stand to protect the Arab nation from division and conflict. But the Arab and Islamic silence we are witnessing at present is nothing but mere participation in the conspiracy," he added. Jawwad Al-Basheeti wrote in the Jordanian daily Al-Arab Al-Yom that the clearest sign that the US could strike Iran soon is Bush's decision to withdraw some of his troops from the "Iraqi trap". Bush will show a withdrawal as a fruit of his success in Iraq after his troops rooted peace and security there, whereas in truth, he has to withdraw his troops before Iran and its followers in Iraq trap them in Iraq if the US strikes Iran. Al-Basheeti added that it was hard to believe that Bush would leave the White House without achieving a military victory. That victory would not be in Iraq but in Iran. "The Bush administration reaped the sour fruits of its war in Iraq in order to reap the sweet fruits in Iran," he wrote. While there are warning signs of an imminent strike against Iran, there is hardly any progress in other pressing issues like Iraq. Al-Basheeti wrote that Bush's recent visit to Iraq showed that he failed to meet his policies and targets. The fact that he did not visit Baghdad indicated that it was not safe enough for him to visit. Instead he visited Al-Anbar, which he thought was secure enough after its Sunni tribes and factions -- and not the US troops -- managed to weaken the influence of Al-Qaeda. However, the death of Al-Anbar leader Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha proved that security in Al-Anbar is as fragile as that in Baghdad. In addition, Al-Basheeti added, there is nothing that can stop these factions from engaging in war in the future. Abdullah Khalifa Al-Shayegi agreed with Al-Basheeti that the death of Abu Risha was a setback. "The assassination of Abu Risha is a clear message from Al-Qaeda that any cooperation with the US would have catastrophic and bloody repercussions," he wrote in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Ittihad. He compared the current US administration to a lame duck because it was incapable of dealing successfully with the present crises and challenges in the Middle East. As a result, it failed to achieve any breakthrough in any of these crises and only succeeded in increasing the feeling of hatred against Washington in the region. Buthayna Shaaban wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that the Petraeus report showed one simple and clear truth: the US occupied Iraq just for its oil and strategic location. It will take it as a permanent base to control the Middle East, and change its social, political and historic identity in a way that suits Israel. In order to achieve its targets, the US threatened Syria, shook Lebanese security, tried to divide Sudan and Somalia, fragmented Iraq, killed its scientists and forced more that four million Iraqis to immigrate.
