Because “defensive alliances which have fixed and limited objectives are often more durable,” the “Syria-Iran alliance has survived” more than three decades of unwavering and insistent US – led military, economic, diplomatic and media campaign to dismantle it, but it is still enduring “because it has been primarily defensive in nature” and “aimed largely at neutralizing … Israeli capabilities and preventing American encroachment in the Middle East.”
This was the conclusion of the professor of International Relations at Webster University Geneva, Switzerland, Jubin M. Goodarzi, in his 2006 book, “Syria and Iran: Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East.”
Professor Goodarzi’s conclusion is worth highlighting amid the thick smoke screen of “chemical weapons,” “civil war,” “responsibility to protect” and the “dictatorship – democracy” rhetoric of the US – Israeli propaganda, which is now misleading the world public opinion away from the core fact that the current Syrian conflict is the inevitable outcome of the 45 - year old Israeli occupation of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights in 1967.
Israel, protected by what President Barak Obama repeatedly describe as the “unshakable” support of the United States, is still maintaining its military occupation of the Golan as a “bargaining chip” to enforce upon Syria, irrespective of the regime and who is ruling in Damascus, the fait accompli which was created forcefully by the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine in 1948.
The US support to dictating the resulting fait accompli to Syria manifested itself first by empowering Israel by US arms and tax payer money to gain the “bargaining chip” of the Golan Heights, then by protecting the ongoing Israeli occupation of this Syrian territory.
The “bargaining chips” of the Sinai peninsula and the West Bank of River Jordan proved successful by dictating the Israeli terms on the signing of the “peace” treaties with Egypt in 1979, with Jordan in 1994 and the Oslo peace agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993, but failed so far to produce similar results with Syria and Lebanon, which remain in a “state of war” with Israel, mainly because Damascus still insists on making peace according to international law and the UN resolutions.
Damascus “did” engage the peace making process. The assumption to power of late al-Assad senior in 1971 was hailed by the US and its regional allies because he first of all recognized the UN Security Council resolutions No. 242 and 338, the basis of the US – sponsored so – called Arab – Israeli “peace process;” he fell out with his “comrades” in the ruling Baath party specifically because of this recognition.
Instead of building on al-Assad senior’s constructive approach, Washington made every effort to pressure him to accept the “Israeli” terms of peace: US sanctions were imposed on Syria and the country was condemned as a state sponsor of terror because of hosting the political offices of anti - Israeli occupation Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements.
Only months after its invasion of Iraq, the US concluded it was very well positioned -- and Syria very well cornered between US occupation in the east, the Israeli occupation in the west, the Jordanian, Palestinian and Egyptian peace accords with Israel in the south and the Turkish NATO member in the north - - to pressure Syria into submission.
On December 12, 2003 the Congress passed into law the “Syria Accountability Act,” the main purpose of which was to disarm Syria and deprive it of all its defensive means and “resistance” allies, long before the eruption of the ongoing current conflict in Syria.
The act demanded the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon, ignoring the fact they were there upon the official request and blessings of Lebanon and the US themselves and the Arab League to secure Lebanon and help it recover after the civil war.
Their withdrawal has become indispensable only after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in the hope the invasion will dictate a peace treaty to Lebanon, which would have left Syria a peace pariah among the Arab immediate “neighbors” of Israel. No surprise then the Syria – Iran alliance was formalized in March that year with a series of bilateral agreements. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 only accelerated their strategic cooperation.
More importantly, the act banned Syria’s engagement “in the research, development, acquisition, production, transfer or deployment” of “weapons of mass destruction,” “biological, chemical or nuclear weapons” and “medium and long range surface – to - surface ballistic missiles,” of course without any reference to Israel’s acquisition of the same and more.
Egypt’s signing of its “peace” treaty with Israel in 1979 deprived Syria of its regional strategic Arab partner in the 1973 war and the collapse of the former Soviet Union deprived it of its international one a decade later, leaving the country off balance.
To strike a defensive alternative “strategic balance” with Israel has become the overriding strategic goal of Syria. No Arab substitute has been available. The revolution in Iran in the same year came as a God – sent breakthrough. The Syria – Iran alliance was cemented ever since. Dismantling this alliance has become the overriding US – Israeli strategic priority as well.
Until Syria finds an Arab strategic defense alternative to Iran or until the United States decides to mediate unbiased peace making between Syria and Israel, the bilateral Syrian – Iranian alliance will endure, unless Washington decides to repeat in Syria its failed invasion of Iraq, which all indications render a mission impossible.
To end the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and other Arab Israeli – occupied lands is the shortest US – Israeli path to dismantling the Syria – Iran alliance and to peace in Syria and the region.
That only would ensure that Syria will shift its outward focus strategically from looking for strategic balance with Israel to liberate its occupied land to the development of its society internally.
Ending decades of confusing the “national interest” of the United States as one and the same thing as that of Israel will for sure lay a solid ground not only for a Syrian but as well for an Arab - US constructive and just relationship built on mutual respect and common interests within the framework of international law and the UN charter.
This is the only and shortest path to peace in Syria and the Middle East, the time saving recipe and the less expensive in human as well as in economic resources. Herein the US can secure its regional “vital” interests “peacefully” without dragging its people and the region from one war to another incessantly.
Peace and injustice cannot coexist.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. nassernicola@ymail.com
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
That's weird
12.09.2013 22:24
Usually having an external enemy tends toward unity in a country, at least until there isn't an external threat. This is the first time I have seen ANYBODY claim that having an external enemy causes internal conflict. If true, probably a first ever.
>
MDN
MDN and weirdness
13.09.2013 10:46
And for as long as you ignore the fact that the so-called rebels are backed, armed and extensively egged on by the imperialists, your analysis will continue to be deficient.
NDM
Please reread (both the original article and my comment)
13.09.2013 13:22
But in any case, that was NOT what either the original article or my comment was about. The original article was claiming that one SPECIFIC outsider was playing a role in furthering the conflict in Syria and was the cause of non-peace there.
I was pointing out that THIS particular outside interest wasn't in a position to do that, that having a neighboring enemy tends to maintain unity, mitigates AGAINST civil war.
This is one of those funny situations. It is of course very much in Israel's interests that a civil war continue in Syria into the indefinite future. But HOW could they best do that? Precisely by acting as much as possible as a non-enemy. However it is difficult for us to criticize anybody acting like that. For example, are you willing to say its WRONG that Israeli NGO's will provide medical treatment to any wounded Syrians brought to their border? Wrong because acting like a non-enemy doesn't mitigate against civil war and wrong because this helps both sides prolong the conflict? Tricky, isn't it (and in the immediate border areas there are "kin" on both sides of the border, Druse and Circassians).
MDN
Western leaders off to The Hague? What's WMD, Nukes, Sarin or DU?
15.09.2013 12:01
Martin Summers with an excellent summary of the present situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCuXdrxyrwE
Thierry Meyssan : The Western secret services are 100% sure of things that aren't logical :
1. They think that combat gases can make the difference between men and women.
2. They observed while the concoction of combat gas was being made, but did not intervene to avoid it's usage. On the other hand, they stepped forward to suggest punishing the ones who used it.
3. They explain that the children were killed on the 21st of August, while the video is dated from before that, and these children come from families that support the Syrian regime and Bashar el-Assad's government.
4. They assure they possess telephone call recordings. But they are not the ones who made those telephone interceptions.
5. And, finally, the ''red line'' affair. According to the joint committee of the British Intelligence service, Jon Day, Syria would have supposedly used combat gas 14 times in the past. But this was never confirmed. Why 14 times before ? Because it is the number of times the US government had use of chemical weapons in Iraq, in 2003-2004. And, of course, it would only be the 15th time of use that would lead the punishment exerted by the great powers.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article180221.html
Israeli Intern