Paradoxes of the US Stance toward Syria and the Arabs

Before talking about the paradoxes of the U.S. stance towards Syria, we have to rely on what the U.S. government makes public in the way of opinions and remarks by its president, its secretary of state, and the other members of the government, let alone what it is doing in the field — in order to establish a basis for these paradoxes. The Americans say they stand for the emancipation of peoples in general and especially that of the Arab peoples — which includes the Syrian people — from dictatorships, which is logical, lovely talk that embraces humanitarian and superior political morals to which I think no sane person would object. The Americans used these very proposals and morals in their war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, in their war against Gadhafi in Libya, and with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and are currently using them against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Let us disregard the ruin and desolation and the blood that flowed and continues to flow in the countries where the United States applied the principle of salvation from dictatorships, and let us return to the paradoxes, the topic of discussion.

Disgust

In the words of its delegate to the Security Council, Susan Rice, the United States was disgusted by the dual veto used by Russia and China against a proposal allowing foreign military intervention to change the system of government in Syria. The paradox here is that the United States did not once feel disgusted by its use of the veto more than sixty times against international resolutions restoring security and equilibrium in the Middle East and reclaiming a modest portion of Palestinian rights usurped by Israel. How does the United States justify this paradox?

Toppling the Arab Dictatorships

The United States talks about, strives for, and works towards — openly and secretly, on an Arab and global level — toppling al-Assad's regime in Syria, whether by the force of arms or political efforts. Its excuse is that al-Assad's regime is a dictatorial regime, and the paradox here is that the same United States props up and supports regimes among Syria's Arab sisters like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Morocco, which are regimes more dictatorial than Syria. They are doctrinal, tribal, repressive, and racist regimes founded on sectarianism to the degree that they legalized crimes against "the other," not to mention other dictatorial countries in various parts of the world that enjoy American support and backing.

Ban on the Sale of Arms to Repressive Regimes

The Americans say they ban the sale of arms to repressive countries and demand commitment to this ban from the world, and they impose this on Syria. The paradox here is that they, that is the Americans themselves, sell arms and incite the world's countries to sell arms to repressive dictatorial governments that use them to shed the blood of their peoples, as is the case in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. These regimes use U.S. arms in the slaughter of their people.

Human Rights and Freedoms

The Americans say they and their friends are working for the region's governments to become democratic, respecting human rights and freedoms, that they support any government that strives to achieve those rights and freedoms, and that they are against governments that do not operate according to this method. The paradox here is that they, the Americans, are against the regime in Syria although it is a secular regime in which we see some human rights and especially women's rights and the rights of minorities, like Christians, Druze and the like. Meanwhile, the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Arab Gulf States in general that are under the control of the United States are devoid of human rights and know nothing about women's rights, let alone the persecution of minorities. Some even strip the majority of their rights, as in Bahrain. The paradox is also that women in Syria work and, just like men, live their lives in nearly full freedom whereas in the Gulf they do not even have the right to drive and do not have the right to travel without being accompanied by one of their close relatives. Besides, women are deprived of the right to vote, to run for office or get government jobs. The most paradoxical image remains U.S. support of the Israeli war on the Palestinians and their personal and national rights, from the racist isolating wall to massacres, starvation tactics, torture, exemplary punishment, the blockade and arrests. So what human rights is the United States talking about?

Arms for the Resistance

The United States is working as hard as it can to supply those who are fighting against the Syrian president with arms, for it is sending weapons, helping to send them and urging Gulf, Arab and European countries to buy and send them to the Syrian opposition. This became patently clear during the Friends of Syria conference that was recently held in Tunisia. The paradox here is that most of the armed groups in Syria, if not all of them, belong to al-Qaeda or follow its method; this the organization that the United States is waging a war against in the United States itself and in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and most of the world's countries. So does the United States regard terrorism in Syria as resistance? We see on the other side that the same United States that supports terrorism in Syria and lays siege to the regime in Damascus is supporting the sectarian, repressive regime of Bahrain against peaceful civil-political opposition and the same is the case in Saudi Arabia. The eternal paradox remains ever existent, such that the United States supports Israel, armed to the teeth with standard and nuclear weapons, against an unarmed, beleaguered people whose land was seized more than six decades ago. And then it considers the Palestinians who resist the occupation terrorists, whereas it considers the terrorists who kill people, the police and the army in Syria revolutionaries and supports them with money, arms and international cover.

The Fall of Dictatorships…Security, Peace, Prosperity, Welfare and Strength

Another of the Americans' paradoxes is that they say that the fall of the dictatorships will bring security, peace, prosperity, welfare, freedoms and strength to the region. The paradox here is that those whom the United States supported in order to topple the dictatorships are the enemies of democracy by force of their doctrinal, extremist religious affiliation and they are dictators by nature and creed: the "Islamists." Look at what they did in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia and how those countries came to lead existences of weakness, insignificance, haphazard politics, chaos, crime, terrorism and social, economic and cultural ruin. So what will the situation be like in Syria if the United States accomplishes what it wants? What a discrepancy between what the United States says and the reality the countries wounded by the U.S. "foot-and-mouth disease" are living.

Syria Suspended between Life and Death

Everybody no doubt has come to realize that what the fourth of the rightly-guided caliphs said — a word of truth intended to deceive — applies to the U.S. scheme in the Arab region. That is, that the United States' call for the toppling of the dictatorships is a call that is seemingly authentic and in the interest of the Arab nations whom those dictatorships have degraded, deprived of their riches, rights and freedoms and contributed in their backwardness and starvation. However, the inner nature of this call is not so and its results are destructive and may put an end to Arab existence entirely. Syria today is at a very critical point in Arab history, for Syria's collapse would mean the end of the end of the Arab entity — forever — in return for the state of Israel's surpassing and becoming superior to not only the Arab region but the whole world. At that time the world itself will have striven to fulfill the Jewish fable professing that God's chosen nation will seize absolute power over the entire world.

The conflagration in Syria and the Arab countries can be described by saying: "The United States is a chef, the opposition is a lighter, the Gulf's oil is fuel, terrorism is a butcher, the people are grilled meat, the homeland is a stove and Israel eats the feast. And the prince of Qatar is the waiter and the pro-U.S. Arab leaders are servers."

I find it necessary here to expose another paradox within the U.S.-Israeli game in the Arab region through the declarations of U.S. personalities with long and active political backgrounds in the Arab region. Among these personalities is the former U.S. secretary of state and sponsor of the Camp David Accord, American by nationality and Jewish to the core by origin, Henry Kissinger, when he said in an interview with the U.S. journal The New Yorker,* "A third world war has indeed begun in Syria." Then Kissinger asked the woman interviewing him, "Do you believe that we started the revolutions in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt for the sake of the Arabs?" Then, with a mocking laugh, he answered, "All of that is for the sake of Iran and Syria. I tried with president Hafez al-Assad before and I confess that he is the only person who defeated and subdued me in my entire life." Kissinger continued, "What we are calling the Syrian revolution has since August 2011 become a cold third world war but it will heat up here after a few months."

And when asked, why Syria in particular? he said, "Syria is now the center of moderate Islam in the world and that is the same Islam that was on the verge of triumph in 1973 if it had not been for Anwar Sadat," and he continues to say, "Syria is at the same time the center of global Christianity and hundreds of Christian cultural sites will certainly be destroyed and the Christians displaced from them. Here is the heart of the conflict with Moscow, for Russia and Eastern Europe profess Orthodox Christianity and are religiously subordinate to Syria, and this is one of Russia and Syria's secrets." He added, "Even if our Arab brothers bribed Russia with all their oil, they wouldn't be able to do a thing!"

And, after coming to understand Russia's situation, when asked what about China and India, he said, "You surely have heard of Hulagu and how he occupied more that half of Asia but was defeated at the gates of Damascus. Here China is doing the opposite since the countries of the East from the Pacific Ocean to the Mediterranean are interconnected with one another like dominoes. We moved Afghanistan and that affected China, so what do you think will happen with Syria? You can observe that China, India and Pakistan are countries competing and fighting among one other. But whoever sees the Security Council's discussions would think they were one country in their speeches; also see the behavior of their delegates and their delegates' insistence on welcoming Syria's ambassador more than once, despite the fact that he is Syria's permanent delegate, and their not mentioning the prince of Qatar and Nabil al-Araby in the session."

And when asked, why haven't you occupied Syria? Kissinger replied, scoffing, "Because of Nixon's stupidity." Proceeding, he added, "The only solution these days is to set fire to Syria from the inside, which is what is in fact happening. I have read (this is Kissinger speaking) a lot about Syria, Syria is poor in fossil resources and poor in water, but what raises my eyebrows is how the Syrians were able to build this enormous infrastructure in comparison to their resources. Look at them: health care is free, education is nearly free, their wheat stores are sufficient for five years, but what has surprised me the most is the cohesion of their people, government and army and the information we have that those who have defected or fled from the army are no more than 1500 from an original number of 500,000."


*Translator's note: I was unable to find any evidence that such an interview ever took place or that it was published in The New Yorker, and it appears from other sources to be entirely fabricated.