Friday, Apr 25, 2003
Friday, Apr 25, 2003 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Atul Aneja
There is considerable apprehension in Syria's official and academic circles that some influential pro-Israel "hawks" in the Pentagon may have made up their mind to go after Syria. In that case, they could override Gen. Powell, even if he, after talks in Damascus, showed an inclination to pursue diplomacy to address U.S.-Syria differences. One view circulating in Syria is that the influence of the Pentagon "hawks" in the Bush administration has grown in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Consequently, the scales in U.S. decision-making circles are clearly tilted in favour of the hardliners who might favour a more aggressive approach towards Syria, rather than the more cautious practitioners of diplomacy in the State Department. While not ruling out the possibility of a war, Syrian intelligentsia in general, is, however, veering round to the view that the U.S., in the end, may not choose to attack Syria. There are three reasons being espoused here on why Washington may wish to avoid a conflict with Damascus. First, unlike Iraq, the U.S., with the exception of Israel, is unlikely to find friends that could set up a "coalition of the willing" that would be inclined to target Syria. Spain has already declared that it would not support an aggressive approach towards Syria. In Britain, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, appears more inclined to get the Israel-Palestinian question resolved in order to soothe the deep sense of hurt among the Arabs following the Iraq war, rather than target Syria for attack. Other key Security Council members, Russia and China, will under no circumstance approve a war against Syria.
Growing difficulties
Second, the growing difficulties being encountered by the U.S. to govern Iraq is likely to discourage it from pursuing a similar course in any other neighbouring country. Besides, Syrian officials point out that there would be recognition in Washington that unlike Iraq, where U.S. forces occupied Baghdad and other cities such as Tikrit, not by fighting, but after negotiating surrender deals with Iraqi Generals, the cost of a U.S. attack on Syria would be prohibitively high. Third, it might be in U.S. interests after the Iraq war not to have Israel as the unrivalled military power in West Asia. In that case, the presence of a relatively strong Syria may be ultimately in U.S. interest, provided relations between Washington and Damascus improve. According to Mahdi Dahlala, editor-in-chief of the Al Baath newspaper, the U.S. rhetoric against Syria has been part of an effort to "pre-empt" some of the difficulties that Washington visualises in the aftermath of the Iraq war. By putting Syria under the scanner, the U.S. hopes to discourage that country from providing external support to emerging resistance groups inside Iraq that might destabilise the post-war situation. Besides, with the dialogue to bring about a thaw in the Israel-Palestinian relations likely to commence soon, the U.S., with its rhetoric, might be seeking to "soften up" Syria that has exercised considerable influence over Palestinian groups.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
