Is it in America's interest to see the prolongation of the bloodbath in Syria? Why did it recently appear wishful to link the Syrian issue to the Iranian file? Why has the American position not moved forward for over a month and not exceeded the level of statements and alleviated calls on Bashar al-Assad to end the violence and leave power? Was Russia able to cause the retreat of the American position or what? During the joint press conference held by American Secretary of State Mrs. Hillary Clinton and the Saudi foreign minister on the sidelines of the first ministerial meeting for the strategic cooperation forum between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and the United States in Riyadh on Saturday, I tried – as others did – to understand the American position toward the Syrian revolution. But Mrs. Clinton ruined that attempt, as she carried an ambiguous rhetoric and used elusive diplomatic expressions, reaching the point of jumping over the bloody daily reality. Clinton maneuvered when answering the journalists' questions about her country's position toward the arming of the opposition. It was as though she was walking on minefields and avoiding any mention of the future action plan to pressure a sanguinary regime that is killing its people before the eyes of the entire world. During the conference, her answers turned toward the position vis-à-vis Iran, the seriousness of its nuclear program, its interference in its neighbors' affairs and its undermining of regional and international security, as though sending a message saying that the Iranian file is the current priority for her country, before agreeing on the necessary steps to help the Syrian revolution and stop the killing of the innocent. The Gulf states told Washington that the fastest solution to end the suffering of the Syrian people and protect the civilians against the crimes of Al-Assad's regime would be to accept to arm and support the opposition. But the response also featured maneuvering and the turning of the blind eye, while stressing that Iran came first and the suffering of the Syrians came second. It was expected to see Washington trying hard to change the Russian position in a diplomatic way, but during the Riyadh meeting, what seemed to have changed was the American position as the White House's stance toward the Syrian revolution is still ambiguous, and distant from the interests of the opposition. During the Riyadh meeting, and instead of seeing the Gulf states ensure a clear American support in favor of the Syrian people to save them from the lethal grip of the regime's thugs, it was announced that a joint security agreement was sealed with Washington to discuss the construction of a missile defense shield to protect the states of the region. This constituted a clear message to Iran, in order to prevent its interference in the affairs of the GCC states, Yemen and some countries in the region, without the proclamation of any effort or plan to help the Syrians. Consequently, the issue was transferred to the Istanbul conference. Some believe that Washington has a plan it does not wish to reveal, so that Russia does not oppose it early on. But in reality, America seems to be like at tourist carrying “pressure” checks and seeking its interests solely. Indeed, what happened in Riyadh is that Washington linked the Iranian and Syrian files and granted priority to the Iranian issue through the establishment of a ballistic missile defense shield in the Gulf. The signs pointing to the prime character of the Iranian file within the White House during the current stage are clearly seen in Clinton's statement in which she said: “The commitment of the United States to the people and the nations of the Gulf is rock-solid,” cautioning: “Iran's window to seek and obtain a peaceful resolution will not remain open forever.” What is certain is that the Arab populations do not wish to hear daily condemnations of the tragedy in Syria, as much as they are yearning for the collapse of Al-Assad's regime and its symbols and the victory of the revolution. For their part, the rebellious Syrian people are not counting much on any Arab position, or even on an international one, as much as they are relying on the Gulf positions which have been clear since the beginning. This is due to the fact that the international resolutions did not treat them fairly and continued to favor the butcher and assassinate the victim. At this level, the time factor is not serving the interests of the Syrian people and should prompt the opposition to quickly overcome its narrow disputes, as the game of interests in the Syrian issue is present alongside the game of the big players over influence in the region. In reality, the American position toward the Syrian revolution has so far been weak and has not exceeded the point of talk surpassed by smaller and marginal states. And as long as the signs are pointing to the fact that Washington will not arm the opposition before it unifies its positions and enhances its strength and leadership, the Gulf states should urge the concerned Arab and Islamic countries to adopt a historical position in support of the Syrian people, in parallel to the adoption of new diplomatic path exceeding the slow American position and the Russian support to Bashar's regime. Let the Gulf states sponsor that step, in which the statements and the actions should converge, without allowing the retreat of their positions which started off by ousting the ambassadors of the Syrian regime, closing its embassies and repatriating their own ambassadors, and adopted a strong and cohesive rhetoric that was echoed among the demonstrators, caused confusion around the presidential palace and paved the way before Syria's Friends in Istanbul to recognize the National Council and the representative of the Syrian people. [email protected] twitter | @JameelTheyabi
