Syria's Need for Arabs
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 05/10/08//
There are two widespread theories that explain the recent explosions and assassinations in Syria. Of foreign source undenied by Israel, the first theory links these operations to the Syrian endeavors to develop a military nuclear program. As for the second Syrian-based theory, it links these operations to takfiri groups.
Amid the mystery that engulfs the investigations and findings, and in light of Syria's reluctance to produce enough evidence to buttress either theory, analysts jump to conclusions based on sporadic incidents often linked in an arbitrary manner. According to the first theory, the new spate begins with the Israeli air raid on the Al-Kibar site, later described by the United States as a nuclear reactor site à la North Korea, one designed for a military program. The assassination of the high-ranking security officer, General Mohammad Suleiman, by a sniper from the sea was attributed to the brigadier's supervision of such a program. Moreover, another high-ranking officer who might have replaced Suleiman was reported to have been killed in the Damascus bombing. Meanwhile, it is in Damascus that Hezbollah's military leader, Imad Mughniyeh, was assassinated.
In all these cases, fingers of accusation are pointed at Israel, which has a direct interest in hitting any embryonic Syrian military nuclear program and liquidating one of its main opponents. The indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations do not absolve the Hebrew State of responsibility, in case the assassinations really target an alleged military nuclear program or aim at liquidating Israeli opponents inside Syria when possible.
Such a conclusion, if true, would impose on Syria a different political and security conduct. Damascus, which categorically denies any intention of a military nuclear program, is exposed to Israeli attacks on its territory. For this reason, it must not only prove the peaceful nature of any potential nuclear activity before the International Energy Agency, the authority on this matter, but it is also required to protect its security and its citizens from this Israeli attack through diplomatic, political, and perhaps military channels. In any case, Syria will have to reconsider its Arab relations in a manner that guarantees it full support in this confrontation. On the other hand, it needs to reassess its relations with Iran so as to disengage the two countries' nuclear programs, especially in light of Iran's ambiguous program and its battle with the West.
If the terrorist acts in Syria are linked to extremist and takfiri activities, then the issue takes on a different new dimension. If they are linked to the situation in North Lebanon, which is accused of exporting such groups to Syria, then it may take an Arab dimension. Regardless of the Lebanese debate over Syria's intentions and its potential military return to Lebanon under the guise of fighting takfiri groups - which has been repeatedly denied by Damascus - we cannot deny the tension plaguing the Arab-Syrian relations. Hence, such relations must be redressed, at least in the context of fighting terrorism and tracking its networks. To this end, trust must be firstly restored in the Arab fold. Then these relations, bedeviled by the exchange of accusations, must be reviewed.
In this sense, and regardless of the nature of the security threat it faces, Damascus must rectify its Arab relations and reconsider some of its stances that distanced it from Arabs. Syria must also realize that its eased international isolation can in no way substitute for its need for Arabs, especially when the challenge seems to take a violent turn.
|
