Madina Newspaper The American policy on the Middle East has not changed for over 50 years. It focuses on the stability of the flow of oil, Israeli security and political Islam following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US. Anyone attempting to understand American behavior toward the Middle East should focus on these three factors: Oil, Israel and political Islam. The Iranian issue has these three elements. However, I am not going to talk about Iran here but mainly about the Syrian crisis, the possible solutions and the American position on the crisis. Of course, I have to mention Iran because the Syrian and Iranian issues are inseparable. The strategic alliance between Damascus and Tehran concerns the US as this poses a threat to its oil interests. The Syrian crisis and the relationship between the Syrian regime and Hezbollah in Lebanon is a threat to Israel while the relations between Syria, Hezbollah and terror groups like Al-Qaeda affect US policy, particularly when one considers that Syrian Islamists may come to power if the regime of Bashar Al-Assad falls. Moreover, the security relations between Syria, Moscow and Tehran are a threat to US interests. That makes the Syrian crisis one of the most important issues which President Obama should deal with at the moment. But what can the Obama administration do? What should it avoid? What can Arabs do to influence US decisions? The United States, as a superpower, can, theoretically, achieve what it wants. But any effort to influence US policy should focus on the motivation of threats. While some Arab nations were trying to motivate the US and Europe to put the Syrian people at the top of their agenda, Benjamin Netanyahu was in the White House persuading the Oval Office to put the Iranian file on top of other files. Netanyahu, who appeared on several US talk shows, said Israel might attack Iran which would drag Washington into the war unless the US itself decides to attack Iran. In a nutshell, the Iranian issue has affected Washington's plan for Syria despite the statement by the US Secretary of State that America has supported the UN Security Council resolution denouncing Al-Assad's atrocities in Syria. Russia and China, which vetoed the resolution, are making their own plans to advance their own interests in Syria and in the Middle East. At the moment, Washington is trying to avoid any direct involvement in a military conflict which might result in the emergence of political Islamists or drag the US into another protracted war as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Syrian crisis and the American concern about Iranian nuclear weapons might enable Arab diplomats to persuade the US to adopt a firm and definite position on the Syrian crisis. Probably, Arabs can convince President Obama that toppling Al-Assad's regime is the best way to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear program. Launching air attacks on the Syrian regime will reduce its ability to support Tehran and reduce its military capability to fight the rebels. Supporting the Syrian revolt is less costly than waging an all-out war against Iran and more effective in stopping Tehran's nuclear program, which almost all countries believe is clandestinely aimed at making nuclear weapons. __
