[Unknown_Enemy]

After Iraq, who's next ?

The United States and Syria: Mounting Tensions and Multiple Agendas

Summary

Tensions between Syria and the United States will heighten dangerously in the coming days. Washington has several goals in mind, but it is unclear what the fallout will be in Damascus.

Analysis

During the past two weeks, U.S. officials have made several seemingly threatening statements about Syria, publicly warning the state to stop harboring militant Groups and suggesting it is aiding Iraq's war effort.

Among the most recent events, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said during an April 9 press briefing that the Pentagon has "scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperative in facilitating the move of the people out of Iraq and into Syria." He later clarified that those people were not senior Iraqi regime leaders, but the statement -- designed to put Damascus on the defensive -- struck home. Then, on April 10, New York's Newsday quoted an unnamed intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld had ordered contingency plans drawn up for a possible invasion of Syria.

Washington's bellicose rhetoric -- and it is merely rhetoric at this point -- is driven by several goals, all of which are now melding to create a layered justification for heightening tensions with Syria. Those tensions likely will ratchet up quickly in the coming days and weeks.

Among Washington's many objectives, the most immediate might be to secure its own western flank in the postwar phase from the potentially hostile Syrian military and any anti-U.S. partisan elements from Iraq that might emerge in Syria. The country's military force is large -- with 316,000 active-duty personnel -- and well-trained, but crippled by obsolete equipment and a shortage of spare parts.

Washington needs to bring significant pressure to bear on the government in Damascus and the Syrian military so that both will concede to working out some security arrangements with the United States -- probably similar to the agreement between Islamabad and Washington that allows U.S. forces to conduct "cooperative cross-border" operations originating in Afghanistan.

Another agenda is the U.S. need to repay allies such as Britain, Spain and Saudi Arabia by pushing forward with the Middle East peace process and plans for the creation of a Palestinian state. To achieve this goal, U.S. State Department officials will seek to reassure Israel of Washington's continued support for Israeli security. The Bush administration might be working toward this end by putting the screws to Syria -- isolating Damascus from potential patrons France and Russia and possibly launching strikes against suspected Syrian chemical weapons plants.

The heightened focus on Syria also could serve U.S. policy goals farther abroad. For instance, Washington sees an opportunity to limit North Korea's access to advanced missile guidance systems by shutting down Syria's ability to act as a conduit: The country reportedly has imported the SS-X-26 Stone (Iskandar-E) short-range ballistic missile from Russia and resold the guidance technology to North Korea, allegedly without Moscow's knowledge. For Washington, raising the proliferation issue with Syria would create tension between Moscow and Damascus -- while further isolating the regime in Pyongyang.

Coming down rhetorically on Syria does nothing directly to aid Washington's battle against al Qaeda: Damascus is even less tied to the group than was Saddam Hussein's regime. Syria has struggled with Islamist radicals itself in the past and would find it difficult to work with Osama bin Laden's Wahhabi network. Moreover, the government has taken specific steps in attempts to pre-empt al Qaeda recruitment and training activities in Lebanon, where they threaten Damascus' own influence.

However, Syria does support the Shia militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and traditionally has backed Palestinian opposition Groups such as the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The State Department lists all of these Groups as foreign terrorist organizations and has labeled Syria a state sponsor of terrorism.

Finally, of the next potential U.S. targets in the Middle East -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria -- Syria is the weakest. By focusing attention there now, Washington could undermine any possibilities that it could serve as an ally for either Riyadh or Tehran, flanking U.S. forces based in Iraq.

Do any of these goals, taken together or singly, necessitate U.S. military action against Syria? Or could Washington achieve its objectives by putting the leadership in Damascus under intense pressure and either triggering a military coup or getting political and military leaders to acquiesce to its demands? Unlike Pakistan, Syria has no military leadership structure, and it is not clear how much control President Bashar al-Assad wields over the armed forces.

At this point, Washington is only barking; it remains to be seen whether it will bite. But even the pressure generated by the recent rhetoric could be sufficient to destabilize the current regime. And if Assad can withstand the pressure, it is far from certain that his regime would survive if U.S. forces were to conduct search-and-destroy missions within Syrian territory or launch strikes against suspected chemical weapons plants.

Then there was this point in a previous article :

Stratfor has argued that the United States had two fundamental reasons for invading Iraq:

1. To transform the psychology of the Islamic world, which had perceived the United States as in essence weak and unwilling to take risks to achieve its ends.

2. To use Iraq as a strategic base of operations from which to confront Islamic regimes that are either incapable of or unwilling to deny al Qaeda and other Islamist Groups access to enabling resources.

Like it or not.