The American strategy of changing the Middle East had two edges, in the sense that the change was not going to be in a single direction. In one sense, it was a success for the US, to a certain extent. This success was represented by the fragmentation of Iraq, its isolation from the surrounding Arab countries, and its falling prey to disputes between Washington and Tehran. In another sense, it was not in the interest of the naïve religious viewpoint of the Bush administration. Iraq has not exited its destruction and produced an ideal democracy for the Middle East. Baghdad has not become a beacon of this democracy, or the basis of a new Middle East. Instead, it has become a burden for Washington, in domestic, external, financial and social terms. It threatens “friendly” states before it threatens the countries in the Axis of Evil. The wager on Sunni-Shiite strife coming from Iraq has ended up sparing no one from its furnace. Iraq exited such a phase with serious losses. Such strife might return to the fore, in the ongoing struggle over political influence. That is Iraq – and as for Lebanon, which has the longest experience with a sectarian regime, there was a wager on sectarian-religious strife that would extend to the heart of Syria. This was the goal of the Israeli war in July 2006, and the resulting sectarian and religious tension that saw the country near the brink of renewed civil war. The most dangerous attempt was to divide the Arabs into moderates and extremists. This policy had a “civilized” political face, but at its heart it was sectarian. The US and Israel are not distant from such an attempt. Neither of them hid their objective: forming a wide front to confront Syria, either to oblige to split from Tehran, or bring down the regime in Damascus, by mobilizing the Lebanese front against it. For Damascus, all of these attempts are now part of the past. After the reconciliation with Riyadh produced safeguards for the Lebanese and the specter of Arab isolation dissipated, and after the US decision to restore ties with Syria, the west halted its campaign against the country. A new political phase has begun, crowned by many agreements with Turkey, as Syria believes that strategic depth in the region lies in the direction of its northern neighbor. This is irrespective of whether the alliance with Iran remains, or whether it ends, if domestic conditions in Iran dictate. Syria has come to grips with all of these attempts and has built on them, while Israel, due to its ideological nature, continues to adhere to its old policies, prompted by its victory over the White House, whose weakness is becoming apparent with every passing day. This victory allows the Israelis to issue threats left and right, especially as President Barack Obama insists, in all of his statements, on the special ties between the US and Israel and stresses their eternal cooperation. This only boosts Israel's arrogance and its blindness to new developments. It exits the Herzliya Conference happy with academic studies that confirm its superiority, especially the study by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, which is exactly in conformity with the vision of Netanyahu. Since things are measured in terms of military might for Israel, its leaders see no shame in threatening total war, in other words by dragging the US into it. The new developments prompted Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to respond to the “bully” with an uncharacteristic bluntness for Syrian diplomacy, especially since the threat was made by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who represents the highest stages of Zionist thought, and its most racist and desperate manifestation.
