Possible US Disassociation from Syria
Ali Rizk
US secretary of state Hilary Clinton is the latest US official to have commented on the issue of al-Qaeda and its role in Syria. In interviews with BBC and CBS Clinton expressed her outright rejection of arming the Syrian opposition, citing that "al-Qaida supports the opposition" and adding "do we support al-Qaeda in Syria?".
Clinton's comments come after both the US joint chief of staff General Martin Dempsey and the head of US National intelligence James Clapper both stated that al-Qaida had infiltrated the Syrian opposition and was very likely behind the bombings that have targeted the Syrian capital Damascus. This kind of talk sheds light on two possibilities regarding Washington's policies towards Syria:
The first is that Washington (based on its own national interests far away and irrespective from "Israel's" interests) would truly prefer Bashar Assad because his fall would likely bring about a fundamentalist regime that would be far worse for US interests. If we take a look at Clinton's statements again she also says "The Syrian National Transitional Council is outside Syria", hinting to doubts about the true support this council has inside Syria.
If we add this to the fact that Washington and co in the so called "Friends of Syria meeting" did not officially recognize the Syrian opposition, one can get an idea of how the US and others realize the weakness of this opposition and realize that those figures in the Syrian National Transitional Council will probably not have control if Assad falls.
The second is that these statements might be a prelude for a gradual change of policy or more likely a policy of "disassociation" on Washington's part toward Syria. One must ask "Why is the US making these PUBLIC statements about Al-Qaida? Washington could have had this information and kept quiet but it chose to go public. One logical explanation is that Washington intends to slowly change or quiet down on the Syrian issue and what better way to do this than to speak of al-Qaeda which is accused of attacking American interests and committing the September 11 attacks.
In the face of the Russian and Chinese stances together with the weakness of the Syrian opposition the US seems to be running out of options and the only remaining option it will have is to strike some kind of a deal with the Russians and Chinese on the Syrian file. What further highlights the realization of the Syrian opposition's weakness is Clinton highlighting the differences between Libya and Syria when she said "that in Libya there was a base for the opposition in Benghazi" from which to provide support, while no such base exists in Syria. Clinton even appeared to make somewhat of a desperate call to the Syrian army and business elite to break forces with Assad after the calls on minorities to join the anti Assad campaign failed (such calls highlight the "limited options").
Of course the truth of the matter may very well be both the above (i.e. that Washington realizes the fall of Assad could do more damage than good for its interests and that it also making the al-Qaida role in Syria public as an excuse for a slow gradual change of approach because it is running out of options).
But at the same time change in Washington's approach towards Damascus will likely be quiet and cautious and not without challenges at least from now until the US presidential elections. US republican candidates (not to mention high ranking members of the Republican Party like John McCain) have all called for arming the Syrian opposition.
Hence a different approach by the Obama administration will lead to Republican criticism of Obama's Syria policy similar to that on his Iranian policy where Republican's are describing Obama as "soft on Iran". This means that Republicans will find another foreign policy issue with which to challenge Obama other than the Iranian file (although both are somewhat connected).
But what is more noteworthy here is the link between these Republican calls for arming the Syrian opposition and Republican candidates' efforts to show that they are "the best friends of "Israel"". Republicans would no way advocate support for such a policy with Syria if this did not resonate with the Zionist lobby in the US and with the "Israeli" government and further enhance their chances for Zionist support and election to the white house.
Put in another way, this Republican rhetoric proves what Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on February 16 "that "Israel" would prefer any alternative beside's Assad" stressing at the same time that overthrowing Assad is something "Israel" advocates. What also proves this is the columns being written by pro-"Israeli" writers in the US like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington post who wrote an article entitled:"Syria is not just about freedom" citing the "strategic opportunity" represented by the Syrian crisis and the fall of Assad and arguing that this was an opportunity to weaken Iran and Hizbullah and the resistance bloc in general. Another pro Israeli writer, Alon Ben Meir spoke in a similar fashion in an article titled: "Syria, the Lynchpin to breaking the Shiite Crescent"( the title speaks for itself).
So in the end Syria just like Iran could become a controversial foreign policy issue in the US elections and another file which the Republicans could use to portray Obama as being somehow not in agreement with "Israel".
US secretary of state Hilary Clinton is the latest US official to have commented on the issue of al-Qaeda and its role in Syria. In interviews with BBC and CBS Clinton expressed her outright rejection of arming the Syrian opposition, citing that "al-Qaida supports the opposition" and adding "do we support al-Qaeda in Syria?".
Clinton's comments come after both the US joint chief of staff General Martin Dempsey and the head of US National intelligence James Clapper both stated that al-Qaida had infiltrated the Syrian opposition and was very likely behind the bombings that have targeted the Syrian capital Damascus. This kind of talk sheds light on two possibilities regarding Washington's policies towards Syria:
The first is that Washington (based on its own national interests far away and irrespective from "Israel's" interests) would truly prefer Bashar Assad because his fall would likely bring about a fundamentalist regime that would be far worse for US interests. If we take a look at Clinton's statements again she also says "The Syrian National Transitional Council is outside Syria", hinting to doubts about the true support this council has inside Syria.
If we add this to the fact that Washington and co in the so called "Friends of Syria meeting" did not officially recognize the Syrian opposition, one can get an idea of how the US and others realize the weakness of this opposition and realize that those figures in the Syrian National Transitional Council will probably not have control if Assad falls.
The second is that these statements might be a prelude for a gradual change of policy or more likely a policy of "disassociation" on Washington's part toward Syria. One must ask "Why is the US making these PUBLIC statements about Al-Qaida? Washington could have had this information and kept quiet but it chose to go public. One logical explanation is that Washington intends to slowly change or quiet down on the Syrian issue and what better way to do this than to speak of al-Qaeda which is accused of attacking American interests and committing the September 11 attacks.
In the face of the Russian and Chinese stances together with the weakness of the Syrian opposition the US seems to be running out of options and the only remaining option it will have is to strike some kind of a deal with the Russians and Chinese on the Syrian file. What further highlights the realization of the Syrian opposition's weakness is Clinton highlighting the differences between Libya and Syria when she said "that in Libya there was a base for the opposition in Benghazi" from which to provide support, while no such base exists in Syria. Clinton even appeared to make somewhat of a desperate call to the Syrian army and business elite to break forces with Assad after the calls on minorities to join the anti Assad campaign failed (such calls highlight the "limited options").
Of course the truth of the matter may very well be both the above (i.e. that Washington realizes the fall of Assad could do more damage than good for its interests and that it also making the al-Qaida role in Syria public as an excuse for a slow gradual change of approach because it is running out of options).
But at the same time change in Washington's approach towards Damascus will likely be quiet and cautious and not without challenges at least from now until the US presidential elections. US republican candidates (not to mention high ranking members of the Republican Party like John McCain) have all called for arming the Syrian opposition.
Hence a different approach by the Obama administration will lead to Republican criticism of Obama's Syria policy similar to that on his Iranian policy where Republican's are describing Obama as "soft on Iran". This means that Republicans will find another foreign policy issue with which to challenge Obama other than the Iranian file (although both are somewhat connected).
But what is more noteworthy here is the link between these Republican calls for arming the Syrian opposition and Republican candidates' efforts to show that they are "the best friends of "Israel"". Republicans would no way advocate support for such a policy with Syria if this did not resonate with the Zionist lobby in the US and with the "Israeli" government and further enhance their chances for Zionist support and election to the white house.
Put in another way, this Republican rhetoric proves what Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on February 16 "that "Israel" would prefer any alternative beside's Assad" stressing at the same time that overthrowing Assad is something "Israel" advocates. What also proves this is the columns being written by pro-"Israeli" writers in the US like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington post who wrote an article entitled:"Syria is not just about freedom" citing the "strategic opportunity" represented by the Syrian crisis and the fall of Assad and arguing that this was an opportunity to weaken Iran and Hizbullah and the resistance bloc in general. Another pro Israeli writer, Alon Ben Meir spoke in a similar fashion in an article titled: "Syria, the Lynchpin to breaking the Shiite Crescent"( the title speaks for itself).
So in the end Syria just like Iran could become a controversial foreign policy issue in the US elections and another file which the Republicans could use to portray Obama as being somehow not in agreement with "Israel".
