“Step Assad” is the title of an article by researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy David Schenker. This American gentleman, an expert on our region's affairs and a strategic analyst at the Department of Defense under George Bush, is representative of a certain American point of view within the current administration as well as previous administrations. It is a point of view that sees no way to dominate the world but through wars and destruction. We thought, at first, after Barack Obama was elected President and after hearing his speeches (in Cairo and in Istanbul), that the influence of the representatives of the American brand of racism, built on a religious and colonialist background, had waned, and that the American people, who had elected the first black president in their history, had made them reconsider their views. Yet here they were, finding their place in research centers, administrations and policy-making centers. Not only that, as they have also forged relations with Arab “experts” and “intellectuals”, exchanging views with them, writing about the same topics, with the same expressions that are nearly translated from the language of racist hatred, which at times takes on the guise of democracy, and at others a religious sectarian guise. In his article, Schenker presents two points of view within the US Administration: the first considers regime change in Syria not to be in the interest of the United States, as the regime might be replaced by one even more radical; as for the second point of view, it considers any other regime to be much better than that of Assad. He does not forget to mention that the Syrian President has supported and continues to support Hezbollah and to provide it with advanced weapons, in addition to harboring Hamas, contributing to “subvert[ing] Iraq) and allying with Iran: “Here's the devil we know (…) No doubt, Assad hasn't killed millions like Stalin. But he has spent his first decade in power recklessly dedicated to undermining stability – and US interests – in the Middle East”. The author concludes by saying that the successive US Administrations have devoted a lot of effort to change the behavior of the Syrian regime and failed. And that “if the Assad regime weathers this storm, hamstrung by ongoing fears of worst-case succession scenarios in Damascus, decades from now Bashar (…) will remain a policy challenge for the United States”. Thus Schenker advises the Obama Administration to “crush Assad” and get rid of him, regardless of what regime replaces him. The truth is that the Obama Administration did not neglect, ever since it came to the White House, to deal with Damascus with extreme caution, clinging to its demands even while changing its style in addressing it. Such change was only natural after the catastrophe the United States caused in Iraq, and in the Arab World as a whole, by turning the conflict into infighting between sects and confessions, which sadly the Arabs willingly engaged in. Washington still views the Syrian regime as an obstacle to its not-so-new plans for the Middle East, aimed at complete hegemony over the region, in collaboration with Israel, and at complete concession over the rights of the Palestinians. The Obama Administration, which was forced to abandon its friends in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, after they had exhausted their function and proved unable to manage their countries in a manner serving its interests, will not hesitate to use what in holds politically, diplomatically and in the media in order to get rid of a regime that it considers to be hostile, that it has failed to convince to break its alliance with Iran and to stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian opposition, and that represents an obstacle to a “historical” reconciliation in the Middle East. This is how the US Administration, in its right wing and its left wing, views what is happening in Damascus. As for the Syrian people, theirs is a different matter. The Syrians, who have lived under the current regime for more than forty years, seek after change, reform, more freedoms and openness – just like the Egyptians and the Tunisians, and all of the Arab peoples. The greater issues and strategies are still far away from their concerns and from their slogans, so far. But they will realize this soon, and if calling for freedom brings them together, then certainly those issues will make them even more cohesive. And then Washington will take a different stance.
