America, Listen to Others Before Making Demands!
Published in Asharq Al Awsat
(Saudi Arabia) on 1 March 2010
by Muhammad Sadiq Diyab (link to
original)
Clinton and the Psychology of Syrian Leadership
When the United States requested that Syria distance itself from Iran — a request made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — it did not offer Syria anything in return should it comply. The U.S. proposed no serious solutions for any of Syria’s major problems, in particular the issue of the Golan Heights. Ultimately, the United States wants Syria to sacrifice its ties with Iran while receiving nothing in return. As such, I correctly anticipated Syria’s reaction to Clinton’s public request, because Clinton did not take into consideration the psychology of the Syrian leadership. Nor was I surprised by the level of sarcasm in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s reaction when he announced during a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “We met today to sign an agreement to distance ourselves from each other.” He then continued sarcastically, “But because of a misunderstanding, maybe due to translation or other miscommunication, we signed a visa waiver agreement [instead].” It would not be expected that Syria, or anyone else for that matter, would be pleased with appearing to endorse limits on its diplomatic relations imposed by others, especially Hillary Clinton, who recently expressed her impatience with those who oppose U.S. dominance in blunt terms. In fact, those who do oppose American hegemony are feeling confident today, as America no longer seems to hold all the cards in the region. They see an emerging picture of American weakness, especially in its influence over Israeli decisions. It is this relationship that has caused a long series of difficulties between America and the countries in the Middle East.
Some think that Syria’s continuation of ties with Iran at this critical stage in Iran–U.S. relations is caused by its economic interests. However, the level of commercial exchange between Syria and Iran does not exceed $350 million. Iranian investments in Syria’s automobile, grain, cement and glass industry are estimated at only $1.5 billion. These numbers are modest and are not large enough to be the decisive factor in the relationship. The decisive factor I see is born of the desperation of the Syrians after four decades of the U.S. playing a “fair” and “objective” role — on behalf of Israel — in the issue of ending Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. This desperation explains Syria’s continued relationship with Iran and others who can offer Syria support on the issue of occupied territory. The picture of America that has emerged is of a weakened superpower, which has been forced to shift its policies and political discourse away from trying to dictate or impose its wishes on others. The time has come for America to listen to the just demands of the Arabs.
When the United States requested that Syria distance itself from Iran — a request made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — it did not offer Syria anything in return should it comply. The U.S. proposed no serious solutions for any of Syria’s major problems, in particular the issue of the Golan Heights. Ultimately, the United States wants Syria to sacrifice its ties with Iran while receiving nothing in return. As such, I correctly anticipated Syria’s reaction to Clinton’s public request, because Clinton did not take into consideration the psychology of the Syrian leadership. Nor was I surprised by the level of sarcasm in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s reaction when he announced during a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “We met today to sign an agreement to distance ourselves from each other.” He then continued sarcastically, “But because of a misunderstanding, maybe due to translation or other miscommunication, we signed a visa waiver agreement [instead].” It would not be expected that Syria, or anyone else for that matter, would be pleased with appearing to endorse limits on its diplomatic relations imposed by others, especially Hillary Clinton, who recently expressed her impatience with those who oppose U.S. dominance in blunt terms. In fact, those who do oppose American hegemony are feeling confident today, as America no longer seems to hold all the cards in the region. They see an emerging picture of American weakness, especially in its influence over Israeli decisions. It is this relationship that has caused a long series of difficulties between America and the countries in the Middle East.
Some think that Syria’s continuation of ties with Iran at this critical stage in Iran–U.S. relations is caused by its economic interests. However, the level of commercial exchange between Syria and Iran does not exceed $350 million. Iranian investments in Syria’s automobile, grain, cement and glass industry are estimated at only $1.5 billion. These numbers are modest and are not large enough to be the decisive factor in the relationship. The decisive factor I see is born of the desperation of the Syrians after four decades of the U.S. playing a “fair” and “objective” role — on behalf of Israel — in the issue of ending Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. This desperation explains Syria’s continued relationship with Iran and others who can offer Syria support on the issue of occupied territory. The picture of America that has emerged is of a weakened superpower, which has been forced to shift its policies and political discourse away from trying to dictate or impose its wishes on others. The time has come for America to listen to the just demands of the Arabs.