Nuclear Syria, why not?

In its May 29 issue, Washington Post carried two reports headlined: "Missile-related shipment to Syria stopped, US says" and "Search is urged for Syrian nuclear sites, US presses UN on 3 alleged facilities".

A few days after the visit of Syria's Defence Minister Hassan Turkmani visit to Tehran and less than a fortnight after the news of Turkish sponsored Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations became public.

That news coincides with a diplomatic activity, European and Arab, centred on or around Syria. Forget the daily killings of Iraqis, of Palestinians by American weapons in the hands of Israeli army, demolition of Palestinian houses and farms to expand Jewish settlements - Syria is now the main focus.

Fine then, and one really hopes that Syria can go nuclear and develop - with help of North Korea, Pakistan or Iran - a deterrent to the only nuclear power in the region; Israel.

Unfortunately, it is too difficult to believe the US administration after all the lies about Iraq and other disasters it unleashed in our region. No assumption, though, that the Syrian regime is just an innocent lamb.

We are not naive enough to swallow that the US is trying to stop Syria developing weapons in the fear of Damascus regime using it against its own people - US led a world siege that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from 1991 to 2003 in the name of freeing them from the tyranny of Saddam Hussain.

In the first report, the paper quotes a senior US official saying that four countries (in our region of course) last year prevented Syria from receiving equipment that could be used to test ballistic missile components.

That official is the national security adviser Stephen Hadley, who is more Zionist than Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was talking in a conference marking the fifth anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative that comprises more than 90 nations cooperating with the US in the so-called "War on Terror".

Attacked

The second report was about American pressures on inspector from the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who might visit Syria to expand their search to many sites.

Supposed aim of the visit, if it happened, is to inspect claims that a site attacked by the Israelis in September last year was a nuclear facility.

Syria has denied the facility was a nuclear reactor, but in April this year "photos" were released by Washington suggesting it was a nuclear reactor built with the help of North Korea.

Such "photos" were a funny reminder of the huge embarrassment suffered by ex-general and former US secretary of state Collin Powell when he was made to lie to the world live on TVs with fake "photos" about Iraqi mobile chemical weapons factories that never existed.

You might not also believe the Syrian regime, and suggest that it is not democratic and transparent and would conceal its intentions. OK; and why conceal?

Every country has the right to arm itself and develop its own deterrent weapons - and spare us any hollow preaching about dangers of wars and benefits of peace at a time the preacher is the main aggressor, invader and occupier.

The irony is that Syria is not going nuclear, and the Israeli attack was more or less a face-saving step to go over the humiliation Israeli army suffered in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the summer before.

The political use of it became clear when Israel called on Syria to cut its close relations with Iran, as part of the proposed peace between Damascus and Tel Aviv. It seems that Syria is not heading the call - at least up until now.

All this does not mean that the propaganda war might work, and even the Syrians might believe themselves and try to bluff. Libya did not really have any nuclear programme, but with the advice of Saudi Arabia and South Africa the Libyan regime announced dropping its nuclear ambitions for lifting sanctions and normalising relations with the West.

The move was a nice tool in the time of the conquering Iraq and used by Washington and London to tell the world that we like those who abide and would punish who resist. Would a Syrian similar move help in taming Iran? Who knows!

In brief, the Syrian regime might not be democratic but the US is not caring more for the Syrian people. With its enemy, Israel, setting on a nuclear arsenal no one can ask Syria not to arm itself and expect to be considered less than an enemy.

If war is a continuation of diplomacy, peace can not be just if not based on power - there is no place for good intentions and political promises in a struggle.

If you got occupying armies, and a nuclear arsenal of arms in the region no one will listen to your peace preaching and the only effective dialogue with an aggressor is resistance. Even preying on Syria will not end the struggle, and most likely it would widen its scope and make it more protracted.

Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.