Daily Times

On August 27, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported that a senior Syrian military official says that if the US or a coalition of nations attacks Syrian government forces, Syria and its allies will launch an immediate attack on Israel. “If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted too and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a licence for attacking Israel,” said the Syrian army official who spoke to the agency on the condition of anonymity. “…rest assured that if Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria’s neighbours,” he said in the reported interview.

The same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would respond forcefully to any retaliatory attacks against his country. After convening his security advisers on Tuesday to discuss the escalating crisis, Netanyahu vowed, “The state of Israel is ready for any scenario. We are not part of the civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength.” Netanyahu convened his security cabinet again on Wednesday morning to discuss Syria. This came as the Israeli security and rescue forces began a-two-day drill on the occupied Golan Heights taken from Syria.

On August 31, the US president indicated to strike Syria even if the Security Council does not approve, considering approval of the US Congress enough as a go-ahead. An attack on Syria is therefore not very far away. The Obama administration pledges that the strikes will be ‘limited’, but what happens when the Syrians fight back? When the event unfolds the response may not match the US calculations. What happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel? If Syrian missiles start hitting Tel Aviv, will Israel not think of flattening Damascus? Thanks to US cooperation it is capable of doing precisely that. Hezbollah and Iran for whom Syria is the only Arab ally are not likely to just sit idly by as Syria is battered into oblivion. The Syrian president’s remarks in an interview with CBS conducted in Damascus are a warning of what may happen if Syria is hit. President Bashar al-Assad while denying the use of chemical weapons said that if there were US attacks on Syria, in response the United States “should expect everything.” Asked if he was making a threat of a direct military response to any such attack, Assad was vague. “Not necessarily from the government,” he said at one point. “It’s not only the government…in this region. You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideologies.”

There is, therefore, a real possibility of the entire Middle East being set aflame. That might only be just the beginning. Russia and China are warning the US government not to get involved in Syria. This could well be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other. It is not likely to happen immediately. The decision that the US takes today may set the stage for worse to follow. ‘World War III’ in the Middle East is an abominable idea. The US must show restraint. The stakes are too high.

The government in Damascus is not ideal. In recent times there is little that is pleasant about the regime. If the government or the rebels indeed used chemical weapons, the act needs to be taken account of. However, considering the apparent urgency of US action there are people who have a valid question about the US’s silence when Iraq — then a US ally — used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988. Why didn’t the US intervene then? The same people may point out that Assad might just be gaining ground on the rebels whom the US’s ally Saudi Arabia wants to win. The Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may well break them north of Homs too. Is it that the west does not want Assad to win? Is the aim in intervening to topple a regime whose record on religious freedom during the last three decades is better than most of the Arab world that would very likely applaud the destruction of a secular Syria?

Interestingly, the International Religious Freedom Report for 2010 released by the US Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour records: The constitution provides for freedom of religion… Government policies and the judicial system allow many groups to worship freely, provided that religious rites do not disturb the public order… Recognised religious institutions and clergy, including all government-recognised Muslim, Jewish, and Christian organisations, received free utilities and were exempt from real estate taxes on religious buildings and personal property taxes on their official vehicles.”

In case the Assad government falls the country will go into the hands of the Salafis who lead the rebellion and Syria where all faiths have coexisted more peacefully than the rest of the Arab world will end up in a perpetual war with itself. The more than 10 percent Christians, the Alawites, the ordinary Sunnis, the Druze, the Shiites, and the Ismailis all dread this. The rocket attack on Bibi Zainab’s (AS) shrine in Damascus that killed its custodian is a stark reminder of the respect the group leading the rebellion has for the differing doctrines. This has the potential to inflame sectarian sentiments in other Muslim countries too with unimaginable consequences. While this may suit the enemies of Syria who prefer a weak Syria embroiled in internal strife, it is not at all in the interest of humanity.

The only sane solution is to engage the current Syrian government in a way that it opens up to pluralistic democracy and have faith in the wisdom of the progressive people of Syria. If indeed the real issue is the use of chemical weapons a democratic Syria will itself punish those responsible. It is high time for China to take the lead and assert itself on the world stage and arrange, together with Russia, an initiative that brings to the table Syrian neighbours, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the other G-8 countries for a lasting solution that preserves the sovereignty of Syria. The G-20 that are being prodded in Russia to accept the US proposal for military action does not include Syrian neighbours Lebanon and Israel, and also does not include Pakistan, the country that has a sizable heterogeneous Muslim population that will be affected by the happenings in Syria and is a practical example of the effects of increased Salafi activity. The only stumbling block is the war hysteria that does not want to let go of this moment seen by it as an opportunity to neutralise an Iranian ally.

The writer can be reached at thelogicalguy@yahoo.com