Rules Of Engagement

Zuheir Kseibati     Al-Hayat     2003/10/7

Syria's claims about its deterrent capacity following the Israeli air raid, paralleled by the threats of Sharon's government to strike deep into Syrian territory, are more than enough to rule out any possible reconciliation between the two parties. If the Likud leader chose this critical timing for the Bush administration, which is embroiled in the Iraqi swamp and trying to salvage the popularity of the U.S. president, there certainly is no need to bring evidence to Israel's opportunism, and Sharon's desire to impose new rules of engagement, against the backdrop of war on terror. More importantly, the administration, which has started the countdown in its preparations for the presidential battle in the U.S. next year, will not spark the anger of the extremist Israeli right-wing, the ally of the U.S. fundamentalist right-wing.      

It is obvious that Washington, which called for "self-restraint" after the air strike on what the Sharon government described as a training base for the Islamic Jihad near Damascus, sided with Israel in the first strike inside Syria over the past twenty years. It has also implicitly supported Sharon's desire to set new rules of confrontation, based on the U.S.-Israeli concept of war on terror. By reminding Damascus that it is still "on the wrong side" in this war, the U.S. is only encouraging Sharon to pursue the escalation and is giving it a green light for new raids on Syria, which it has accused of failing to meet its demands, namely to cease its "support and protection of terrorism."

If the U.S. is focusing on "terrorism infiltrating into Iraq through Syrian borders," while Sharon has its eye set on "camps to train and recruit Palestinian terrorists" inside Syria, the U.S.-Israeli pressure on Damascus could very well pave the way for a regional war, if not a Syrian-Israeli confrontation - but not only with Lebanon as its scene this time.

In a reversed sequence of events and stands and decision-making regarding Damascus, it isn't surprising that Israel would promote for a sudden attack on Syria and Egypt, and the campaign at the U.S. Congress on "Damascus supporting terrorism and sending its fighters to Iraq, occupying Lebanon, attempting to possess illegal weapons" to justify asking support to impose sanctions on it. But the new accusation designed to find a justification to support the "retaliation against terrorism," is the claim that Damascus is recruiting members to carry out operations in Israel and that there are talks for a Syrian-Iranian alliance to finance Palestinian organizations. It became clear that the threats took a new turn with the Israeli campaign on "occupying Lebanon and repressing the Syrian people," with the talk of "harsh sanctions" and "international action," as if Sharon, who has renewed the claims that Syria supports Saddam's regime, aims at much more than just the fact that the U.S. would turn a blind eye to its air raids in retaliation for the "restaurant massacre" in Haifa.

After Washington managed to obtain Syrian approval for allowing the Roadmap to take its course, the Likud leader is working on getting its approval to join his war against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah or else, to pay a high price. No one, besides the Bush administration, would believe Sharon, no matter what he does to present 'evidence' on the existence of training camps for Palestinians in Syria, while the balance of power and the U.S. occupation of Iraq don't allow taking any risks or being defiant.

Sooner or later, Damascus will find itself facing a problem: a repeat of the Israeli air raid would impose retaliation; but what kind of retaliation? Its threat to "create a deterrent balance" is still ambiguous, as this would mean having a weapon arsenal that is allowed in Israel, and forbidden in others, especially Syria, which Congress is threatening with the Accountability Act and closely monitoring its steps. One of its members, Jean Herman who opposed the Israeli raid, nonetheless couldn't hide her delight when she said that only the Jewish state knew how to defend itself.

Damascus is also aware that all the talk about the Syrian-Palestinian-Iranian triangle is met with a general feeling of relief among the radicals in Washington, who opposed the Security Council resolution about Syria and to condemn the Israeli air raid, just as they obstructed a resolution rejecting the removal of President Arafat from the Palestinian territories. Sharon is probably wagering on another provocation for Damascus, encouraged by the American attitude and Iran's inability or unwillingness to get involved directly in a war, which prevents it from having an opportunity to establish a dialogue with the Bush administration, away from the chaos of the reciprocal campaigns. As for the Arab condemnation of Israel's terrorism, it doesn't alleviate the U.S.-Israeli pressure on Syria, as the worst is still to come.