There Will Be No Invasion of Syria

by Steve

In a somewhat surprising development, tomorrow’s Guardian has learned that Bush has vetoed any military strike against Syria.

The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday.

President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.

"The talk about Syria didn't go anywhere. Basically, the White House shut down the discussion," an intelligence source in Washington told the Guardian.

Faced with rising apprehension over the prospect of a new conflict, Tony Blair also offered categorical assurances to anxious MPs yesterday that Britain and the US had "no plans whatsoever" to invade Iraq's neighbour.

Dismissing fears of an Anglo-American invasion as another "conspiracy theory", the Prime Minister said that Mr. Bush had never mentioned an attack on Syria during their regular talks. "I have the advantage of talking to the American president on a regular basis and I can assure you there are no plans to invade Syria," he said. "Neither has anyone on the other side of the water, as far as I am aware, said there are plans."

Mr. Rumsfeld repeated accusations yesterday that Syria had tested chemical weapons in the last 12 to 15 months. However, Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and would not be breaking international law if it did possess, nor is it suspected of selling chemical weapons to others. One US administration official conceded: "They've not taken any actions that we can see so far that would justify military action."

"There's no question of this at the White House," the diplomat said, pointing out that the Syrian army would be a far more potent adversary than Iraq's bedraggled forces. "Anyone who lives in the real world would never see this as more than noise."

British officials confirm they share US alarm about Syria's recent conduct and its sponsorship role in Palestinian terrorism. But Mr. Blair has cultivated Bashar al-Assad, its British-educated president, and adopts a more conciliatory tone towards Damascus. "It's a bit of a good cop, bad cop routine," one Whitehall official said of the tougher line coming from the US.

The prime minister's upbeat report to MPs on what, for the first time, he called victory was marred by skeptical challenges from both sides based on reports from Washington that Bush hawks want to move on the Ba'athist regime next door. Evidently exasperated, Mr. Blair denounced "conspiracy theories" and insisted that he could not be clearer about his determination to tackle Syria by diplomacy.

What are we to make of this? Is Bush suddenly a man of reason? Maybe, maybe not.

Does he fully acknowledge that an attack on Syria is impossible with our forces tied down so much in Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably.

If they are sincere about their charges against Syria, that it has a (legal) WMD program and is harboring Ba’ath party officials, then why stop now? With the white-hot rhetoric from Rummy and others continuing, why would Bush slam the brakes on now, when such a move runs contrary to the Project for a New American Century grand plan?

Perhaps it is out of a well-reasoned fear of Syria’s military and the harsh words of warning from the Russians. Perhaps it is out of some fear from the reaction from the Arab world and the rest of the world to such an illegal act of aggression.

It is not because it would not be popular at home, unless Rove has advised him that his currently high poll numbers could start tumbling with another war and a still-delayed economic recovery.

Perhaps because it was easy to beat up Iraq.

Perhaps because when you come right down to it, Bush knows they have bitten off quite a lot already in Iraq.

Perhaps Rove has convinced Bush that toppling and occupying two countries is more than his reelection can stand.

Perhaps it is plainly because Syria doesn’t have oil.

And perhaps, it really was personal. Bush just wanted Hussein’s ass.