 |
Sean Gannon is a freelance writer and researcher on Irish and Israeli affairs, specialising in the relationship between the two countries. He is currently preparing a book on this subject and writing the chapter on Ireland for a forthcoming study on the interplay between Anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism in Europe since 9/11.
|
|
|
|
By Sean Gannon
April 14, 2003
Given the powerful scenes of unrestrained joy on the streets of Baghdad this week, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the liberation of the Iraqi people was not the primary reason the coalition went to war. No, the Iraqi regime was attacked under the auspices of the 'war on terror,' to end both its development of weapons of mass destruction and its support for terrorism. "This" said Ari Fleischer "is what this war was about."
If he is right, then this war must end, not with the fall of Saddam but of Bashar al-Assad. For in comparison to Syria's tireless sponsorship of terrorism, even Iraq's involvement in such activity seems decidedly small-scale. Without seeking to diminish the damage caused by those organizations with which Saddam had dealings, they are simply not in the same league as those connected with Syria. Abu Nidal's days as a godfather of global terrorism were behind him long before his death in a Baghdad apartment while Abu Abbas's PLF has been pretty ineffectual for some time. The Arab Liberation Front has, in the main, confined itself to disbursing Saddam's largesse to the families of suicide bombers and even if Saddam was linked to the al-Qaida-affiliated Ansar al-Islam, the group did little more than tyrannize a handful of Kurdish villages.
Heinous as such activities are, they pale into insignificance when compared to those of the terrorist organizations which operate openly out of Damascus. The pain and suffering wreaked on Israeli society by the butchers of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad can scarcely be quantified while the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has been responsible for some of the most notorious acts of terrorism of the last 35 years. But in terms of Washington's 'war on terror,' Syria's support for and control over Hizbullah is perhaps the most significant for it has directly attacked America to the extent that it was, prior to September 11th , responsible for more U.S. deaths than any other group. Aside from its tireless aggression against Israel, it has plied its deadly trade on three continents and maintained contacts with other terrorist gangs such as ETA, FARC and the Provisional IRA. They truly are terrorists 'of global reach.'
America has already tried and failed rapprochement with Syria. Although included on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979, it was invited to join the fight against terrorism after September 11th and for a time actually seemed to be playing a constructive role. However, it didn't take long for the regime in Damascus to revert to type leading to President Bush's declaration in June 2002 that "Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations."
But if anything, Bashar al-Assad has increased his support for terrorism since this warning. As his recent comments have confirmed, his hatred of Israel is unbounded and he has been indefatigable in seeking to undermine it. To this end, he has facilitated the transport of vast quantities of Iranian weaponry to Hizbullah and is reported to have supplemented these stocks with 240mm rockets from his own extensive arsenal. He has allowed them to escalate their attacks on Israel's northern border and infiltrate into the territories from where they have continued their assault on the country, a very dangerous tactic about which he has been repeatedly warned by Jerusalem. And in a move tailored to outrage America, he allowed over 150 al-Qaida terrorists to shelter in Ein al-Hilwah in Lebanon.
And what of weapons of mass destruction? Syria is known to be pursuing chemical and biological weapons programs and the possibility that the fruits of its labors will find their way into the hands of one or more of Assad's many terrorist friends is the ultimate nightmare scenario. In addition, intelligence sources claim that he is now in possession of Saddam's missing stockpiles, having allowed them to be hidden on Syrian soil when matters began to heat up for Baghdad in the late summer of 2002. On the nuclear front, Syria was close last year to securing a deal with Russia to build a 1,000-megawatt reactor and while President Putin buckled under American pressure and called off the deal, there is every chance that he will eventually accede to Assad's requests; we know from Moscow's dealings with Tehran that it has no scruples in this regard. Worrying also is the agreement Syria signed last July with North Korea pledging "scientific and technical cooperation"; given Pyongyang's nuclear and ballistic know-how and its increasing international isolation, this poses a grave threat to Israel, the region and the world.
The above alone would suffice to put Syria in the Pentagon's cross-hairs but his conduct since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom has surely doomed the Damascus regime. Supplying Iraq with military equipment throughout the 1990s in contravention of a UN embargo is bad enough but to continue this while America is actually at war with the country is foolhardy in the extreme. His explicit statements of recent weeks championing Saddam's cause will not have done him any favors either nor will his call for the implementation of the Arab Defense Agreement in support of the Iraqi regime. And his policy of letting jihadists into Iraq while letting Ba'athists out will hardly have won him friends in Washington either. Donald Rumsfeld's remark that he found such behavior "notably unhelpful" may well go down as the mother of all understatements.
If any country meets the Bush Doctrine's criteria for a pre-emptive strike it is Syria. Its support for terrorist organizations and regimes makes its non-conventional weapons' program a grave danger to regional and global security. It was precisely for such reasons that the coalition forces invaded Iraq. Washington must not be deterred by the opposition of its allies and take action to neutralize this clear and present danger.
Given the parlous state of the Syrian economy, sanctions may well suffice to force a change. With the overthrow of Saddam, Damascus will now have to do without exports to Iraq worth around $1 billion a year and the $1 million a day it was reported to have made from its smuggling of Iraqi oil across the border in violation of UN sanctions.
But if this is not enough, Washington must not 'waver, tire or falter' and send its troops down the road to Damascus.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
