'Council of War' in Damascus

27 February 2010
The tripartite meeting held in Damascus the day before yesterday between Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and his Iranian guest President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad in addition to "Hezbollah" leader Hasan Nasrallah was tantamount to a "council of war" to draw up future plans and distribute roles in case of any Israeli attack on any of the three parties or all of them. We do not forget an expanded meeting between Ahmadinezhad and leaders of the Palestinian factions within the same framework.

The timing of this meeting, the way it was held, and the press conference held at its conclusion confirm that a strategic alliance's bonds are being tightened and a new front is being formed that will be the spearhead against the US-Israeli alliance and any of the Arab governments that might join it, covertly or overtly, if war broke out. The Iranian president expected this war to break out this coming spring or summer, that is, after very few months, while Nasrallah stressed he would strike Tel Aviv, its airports, and electricity stations if Israel dared to strike Lebanon's airport or any of its electricity stations and vital targets.

We have here a new language, unprecedented self-confidence, and readiness to retaliate which we have not heard before, especially from the Arab regimes, from when they turned towards the peace option, dropped all other ones, and underlined this turning in an Arab peace initiative whose provisions were prepared carefully in the US kitchen by expert chefs.

The Arab region is at present standing before a new stage of grouping similar to the one which preceded the wars on Iraq (1991 and 2003) and according to the same compass, that is, some will stand in the American trench and the others in the opposite one. In the same way that some Arabs allied themselves with the Americans against Iraq, the Arab country, for the first time in the region's history, we might see in the coming stage another yet more dangerous precedence, namely, Arabs standing in the American-Israeli trench against the Syrian-Iranian alliance and its offshoots.

The Syrian leadership has apparently resolved its position and decided to close the doors to the vague and cheap American wooing and to bolster its strategic alliance with Iran in a clear response to the advice of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which demanded from it (the Syrian leadership) to distance itself from Iran which is causing problems in the region.

This Syrian resolution follows a long period of adopting a calm diplomacy and keeping doors with the West, and specifically with the United States, ajar but it appears that the proximity of the date of the confrontation led to the abandonment of this approach and to starting the preparations for the coming "mother of battles" possibilities.

Syria cannot leave its strategic alliance with Iran of more than 30 years and we do not even exaggerate if we say that it will absolutely not think of doing this because the alternatives on offer are inadequate and humiliating by any standards.

Mrs Clinton, who deviated from diplomacy and even from all acceptable moral norms by demanding from Syria to stay way from Iran, did not offer it in return anything other than hinting at the return of the American ambassador to Damascus, as if Syria cannot live without the presence of an American ambassador in it.

Syria was for 30 years a major side in the Egyptian-Saudi troika which ruled the region for 30 years and wagered on peace. What has Washington offered it in return for "its moderation?" Has it returned the Golan Heights to it, unleashed its billions to end up in investments that create jobs and a dignified life for the unemployed, or is it still on the list of terrorist countries?

There is no direct air flights between Damascus and any American city and we have not even seen a single American plane landing at Damascus Airport for 50 years even though Syria opposed Iraqi President Saddam Husayn's regime, took part directly in the "liberation" of Kuwait, and cooperated fully in the war on terror and continues to do so.

We are facing quickening developments in the region. When did we see Nasrallah arriving openly in Damascus and when did we see Ahmadinezhad praying in a Sunni mosque and behind a Sunni imam and reacting emotionally when Al-Alam television channel's correspondent tried to provoke him by asking him about this matter!

Some might argue that it was a carefully-prepared media step for the purpose of getting closer to the Sunni community. This might be the case and what is wrong with it? We are all Muslims and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia -a leading country in the moderation axis which is opposed to Iran -launched through its King Abdallah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz two important initiatives during the past two years, the first by opening dialogues in depth for bringing the Islamic doctrines closer, in particular the Sunni and Shi'i ones, and the second was the launch of the interfaith dialogue between followers of the three divine religions.

We wish to see Arab Sunni leaders praying behind imams from Al-Ja'fari doctrine and in Shi'i mosques for the sake of achieving the historic reconciliation and burying the sectarian sedition that was deepened during the American occupation of Iraq. What is the objection to this? Are we not all followers of the ummah of the Prophet, may the blessing and peace of God be upon him?

We understand very well that the new Syrian-Iranian alliance does not possess nuclear warheads or the sophisticated weapons that Israel and the United States possess. In other words, the military balance is unequal. But was this not the situation when Israel sent its warplanes and tanks to invade south Lebanon in the summer of 2006? What was the result?

The US-Israeli strike force is mighty by all standards and this is indisputable. But we must remember that Japan remained Japan even though two atomic bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Germany was reunited 50 years after being partitioned, and Syria and Egypt survived after the 1967 defeat. But the question is whether Israel will remain in existence if it embarks on new aggression and even if it survives, will it be as it is now?

Israel is in a suffocating crisis, internally and externally, and is hated even in the circles of its Western allies who are fed up with its arrogance, swaggering, repeated aggression against the weak in Gaza and elsewhere, and its provocative rejection of all peace plans and proposals and is therefore in a state of confusion that was clearly manifested by its dispatch of a "regiment" of agents to assassinate a single unarmed person called Mahmud al-Mabhuh in Dubai and which was totally counterproductive for it despite its success.

The Israelis are beating the drums of war and the Obama administration seems to be incapable of keeping it under control and has probably became more convinced of their theory about the inevitability of launching an aggression against Iran and Syria. This explains why it has abandoned the peace process, acknowledged Israel's right to settle in occupied Jerusalem, and dealt indifferently with its allies in the Palestinian National Authority.

The onslaught by American military officials on the region, starting with Michael Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Joe Biden; yesterday's meeting between US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak in Washington; and Netanyahu's expected visit to the US capital next week are all of them signs that the war is getting closer, not moving away.

Israel cannot coexist with a nuclear power in the region that cancels its strategic superiority and also cannot accept an Islamic bloc at its borders which includes Iran, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan which cancel visas, allow their citizens to move with personal identity cards, and expand the trade exchange and joint projects. Therefore the reports of the failed military coup in Turkey against the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not come as a surprise since it was the one which achieved and strengthened this new equation when it got closer to Iran, Syria, and other Arabs and at the same time moved away from Israel.

We do not believe it was a "slip of the tongue" when Ahmadinezhad said at the press conference with President Al-Asad that the peoples of Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine... and Iraq" would confront Israel and its aggression. Has Washington heard this "slip" which confirms the failure of its aggression against Iraq and its spending of more than $800 billion on it!