Top Stories - washingtonpost.com

Yahoo! News

U.S. Tensions With Syria Escalate

 

Thu Feb 17, 8:58 AM ET

 

By Robin Wright and Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writers

 

After decades of tension with Syria, the Bush administration intensified its search yesterday for punitive actions -- from freezing assets to tightening diplomatic isolation -- to force Damascus to withdraw troops from Lebanon, end support for terrorism and block assistance to the Iraqi insurgency through Syria.

 

The United States is now using the world furor over the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri to generate momentum against the regime of President Bashar Assad. Before flying to Washington, U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey relayed a stern message yesterday to Foreign Minister Farouk Charaa.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) called for additional joint action with allies to heighten pressure on Damascus. "If they can send the Syrians a message that this kind of behavior in which they're engaged is not acceptable, then perhaps the Syrians will start to worry more about their isolation . . . politically and economically, not just from us but from others as well," Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

The assassination put Syria back on the Bush administration's front burner at a time when U.S. attention had been focused on other flash points, particularly nuclear programs in North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran. A thorn to Republican and Democratic administrations, Syria has had 14,000 to 42,000 troops in Lebanon for three decades, a presence U.S. officials say destabilizes the country and the region.

 

The United States has put Syria on its list of states that sponsor terrorism for providing a refuge for extremists and a supply lifeline for groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah. Most recently, U.S. officials complained that Assad has failed to clamp down on supporters of Iraq (news - web sites)'s insurgency.

 

The diplomatic battle lines were shaping up yesterday as the United States and its allies pressed Assad to address international demands.

 

Syria and Iran, both condemned by the Bush administration for their links to terrorism, announced yesterday that they are forming a united front to deal with potential threats.

 

"In view of the special conditions faced by Syria, Iran will transfer its experience, especially concerning sanctions, to Syria," said Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref after a meeting in Tehran with Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Naji Otri. "At this sensitive point, the two countries require a united front due to numerous challenges." He did not elaborate.

 

The United States, in turn, is working closely with French President Jacques Chirac, who made a surprise trip to Beirut yesterday to convey condolences to the Hariri family. What to do about Syria is "rapidly climbing up the agenda" of a meeting on Monday between President Bush (news - web sites) and Chirac, said a senior administration official speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity. "We're on the same page. . . . The entire international community wants to see something happen."

 

The administration is exploring three baskets of measures -- under the Syrian Accountability Act, under the USA Patriot Act and by executive order, U.S. officials said yesterday.

 

Under the Patriot Act, Washington can cut off access to U.S. banking institutions that serve as clearinghouses for international financial transactions -- not just with the United States -- in ways that would hurt Syria, U.S. officials said. Threatening to invoke this measure in the past produced new cooperation, said sources familiar with the move.

 

But imposing new sanctions under the Syrian Accountability Act, such as limiting travel of Syrian diplomats at the United Nations (news - web sites) and in Washington, could backfire, U.S. officials said. Damascus could impose the same 25-mile limit on U.S. diplomats, curtailing intelligence operations and monitoring the Syrian border with Iraq.

 

Another potential tool is a presidential executive order to freeze Syrian assets in the United States, an administration official said.

 

Washington is interested in new measures in part because Syria has rebuffed repeated overtures, U.S. officials said. Former U.S. ambassador Edward P. Djerejian met Assad on Jan. 13 and conveyed messages from the United States asking Syria to act urgently to head off a serious rupture in relations. Djerejian said Assad responded with "a list of things he had been doing," but said they were unconvincing. As a result, relations are now at "a crossroads," he said.

 

Until the Hariri assassination -- which the United States has not linked directly to the Assad regime -- Syria still sparked differences within the administration. A source with ties to the administration said a plan was developed a month ago to authorize U.S. military forces to cross Iraq's border into Syria if they were in "hot pursuit" of suspected insurgents. But the administration, the source said, shelved the plan after resistance from U.S. commanders who asked for more time to handle the situation.

 

As the administration deliberates options, analysts warn of potential dangers in confronting Damascus. "If our objective is to free Lebanon from Syria's grip, then we have to understand that Syria has a vital interest in Lebanon and will act accordingly," said Martin Indyk, former State Department and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution.

 

"The last time we had a vital interest in Lebanon we sent U.S. Marines -- and lost 241 of them," he said, referring to the 1983 bombing in Beirut. "Are we ready to have people die for the sake of Lebanon's freedom from Syria?"

 

 

 

The dangers, Indyk said, are partly from Hezbollah, an Islamic party whose militant wing was linked to attacks on U.S. diplomatic and military facilities and American hostage-taking in Lebanon in the 1980s. The United States needs to be "clear-headed about the stakes and the risks," especially the prospect of turmoil pushing Lebanon into chaos again, he added.

 

But sanctions have strong support in Congress, where Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) (R-Va.) called yesterday for "tough" new measures.

 

"The assassination shows that Syrians continue to act with impunity," said Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act.

 

Noting that Bush has enacted two of six possible sanctions under the law, Engel called on the administration to implement all options as well as other steps by executive order. "It's time to ban U.S. companies investing or operating in Syria. Not that we have a lot, but I think it sends a message."

 

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the act, said Washington should use attention from the assassination to "save Lebanon and give to them their independence."

 

Decisions on new measures may be weeks away, U.S. and European officials said, since the United Nations is first expected to report on the "circumstances, causes and consequences" of Hariri's death.

 

I say we just drop a Nuke on all 3 countries.

 

Whaddya say?

I think it's a good idea to increase pressure on Syria, but I DON'T want another invasion. We can take care of them without sending troops.

Drop a nuke, sure. :thumbdown

I don't think that nuking the "Axis of Evil" would accomplish anything. It would take a lot of nukes to destroy each of those countries, especially Iran, and our country might be on the receiving end of some nukes because of our use of them.

Drop a nuke, sure. :thumbdown

689614[/snapback]

 

 

I don't think that nuking the "Axis of Evil" would accomplish anything. It would take a lot of nukes to destroy each of those countries, especially Iran, and our country might be on the receiving end of some nukes because of our use of them.

689644[/snapback]

 

I was being sarcastic really.

 

That would never happen even though sometimes I wish it could.

 

Lets face it, were never going to be able to change how the middle east thinks of us and they will always hate us. So why not nuke them, sure a lot of innocent people would die but so would people here in the US with terrorist attacks.

 

just a thought.

I have a feeling that far more people would die from our nukes than from terrorism.

I have a feeling that far more people would die from our nukes than from terrorism.

689790[/snapback]

 

Call me selfish if you want but they wouldnt be our people.

 

I'd rather sacrfice some lives so we can live in peace.

 

Either way like I said this wont happen and if it did it would create more problems as other countries would get on the offensive and probably bomb us.

I have a feeling that far more people would die from our nukes than from terrorism.

689790[/snapback]

 

Call me selfish if you want but they wouldnt be our people.

 

I'd rather sacrfice some lives so we can live in peace.

 

Either way like I said this wont happen and if it did it would create more problems as other countries would get on the offensive and probably bomb us.

689853[/snapback]

Good God I cant believe youre serious. Perfect example of how people see this as a war on foreigners and not on terrorists. You dont realize the can of worms that would be opened by this?

I have a feeling that far more people would die from our nukes than from terrorism.

689790[/snapback]

 

Call me selfish if you want but they wouldnt be our people.

 

I'd rather sacrfice some lives so we can live in peace.

 

Either way like I said this wont happen and if it did it would create more problems as other countries would get on the offensive and probably bomb us.

689853[/snapback]

Good God I cant believe youre serious. Perfect example of how people see this as a war on foreigners and not on terrorists. You dont realize the can of worms that would be opened by this?

690040[/snapback]

The problem is, most Americans believe that our lives are far more valuable than some backwards Iraqis. That couldn't be further from the truth. They have their own families, wives and children. They really aren't as different from us as it might seem.

Yes but the Iraqi families are full of future terrorists which in most cases American families arent. So yeah I think American live are more important than theres. We go over there to try to help them and they treat us like s***, why should I care for them.

Yes but the Iraqi families are full of future terrorists which in most cases American families arent. So yeah I think American live are more important than theres. We go over there to try to help them and they treat us like s***, why should I care for them.

690509[/snapback]

You do realize that if the position was reversed, Americans would be angry at foreign troops operating on our soil. People don't believe everything they're told.

If the Iraquis invaded the US to overthrow a brutal dictator who killed thousands of his people, I think I and most American would be pretty grateful towards the invading country.

I'm sure futureGM would love it if some foreigners would overthrow bush :lol . But joking aside, Dagreatone, i understand that it is often necessary to give lives to save lives, but in a situation like syria or iran, the alternative which is give up as few lives as possible to save lives is better. Now iraq is key in this debate. Had we not invaded iraq would US threats have as much legitimacy? I dont believe so. however, this is going to come down to a poker match and hopefully iran doesnt try to call our bluff.

Good God I cant believe youre serious. Perfect example of how people see this as a war on foreigners and not on terrorists. You dont realize the can of worms that would be opened by this?

 

Depends on the target(s). I would think.

 

The us rather than them attitude is why we nuked Japan - it was going to save about a half million predicted casualties taking the place by conventional means.

 

Clearly a lot of innocent ppeople got roasted, but that didn't stop Truman from making the call.

 

Who here could say they would have wrecked/wasted those half million American lives rather than spending and wrecking the opponent's instead? I can't - I would have made the same call Truman did.

690537[/snapback]

 

First time I ever agree with you.

 

:lol

I'm sure futureGM would love it if some foreigners would overthrow bush :lol . But joking aside, Dagreatone, i understand that it is often necessary to give lives to save lives, but in a situation like syria or iran, the alternative which is give up as few lives as possible to save lives is better. Now iraq is key in this debate. Had we not invaded iraq would US threats have as much legitimacy? I dont believe so. however, this is going to come down to a poker match and hopefully iran doesnt try to call our bluff.

690539[/snapback]

 

I agree but I was just stating the feeling I get when I hear another American soldier dying out in Iraq for an ungrateful nation while an American family loses a father/son.

I'm sure futureGM would love it if some foreigners would overthrow bush :lol . But joking aside, Dagreatone, i understand that it is often necessary to give lives to save lives, but in a situation like syria or iran, the alternative which is give up as few lives as possible to save lives is better. Now iraq is key in this debate. Had we not invaded iraq would US threats have as much legitimacy? I dont believe so. however, this is going to come down to a poker match and hopefully iran doesnt try to call our bluff.

690539[/snapback]

 

I agree but I was just stating the feeling I get when I hear another American soldier dying out in Iraq for an ungrateful nation while an American family loses a father/son.

690543[/snapback]

 

It truly is a tragedy whenever another human being dies, and i do feel worse when its an american, simpyl b/c im an american not b/c the american is worth more than anyone else.

Clearly you are thinking with emotions and not your brain on this one Dagreatone. You understand the concept of life as a bottom up model and not top down? Nearly everyone over there doesnt care about hating or loving the US. They live their lives normally just like you and me. Your view is about as rational as saying we should kill southern whites for the actions of the klan. Entire nations dont think in one common thread and shouldnt be represented by the actions of a few. You do understand how many innocent Iraqis have died at the hands of terrorists too right? You do realize they want peace too right? Most people dont like trouble..its common amongst all humans. Im sure they are thankful that Saddam is gone but you let teh actions of a few dictate too much. Nuking nations for the actions of a few is gonna open up a much larger nerve. Your view is the equivilant of using TNT to blow up an anthill..blowing up your house and neighbors too.

f_m I never said that we should go right now and bomb the middle east.

 

I just said I feel like that sometimes exactly what you said it was just emotion.

 

Of course if we did this it would open up a whole bunch of other crap which would be worse.

 

It was just an emotion I was expressing of anger.

The US government can take care of this diplomatically as long as they avoid the UN.

I would just like to know what happened to the idea of "Clear and Present Danger". I can tell you that Syria doesn't represent a threat to the U.S. at this point, but N. Korea and Iran will soon.

Iran and N.Korea actually have nuclear weapons, unlike Iraq or Syria.

 

Shortly North Korea will have the capability to launch a nuke at the west coast of the U.S., if their weapons work properly.

Somehow I don't think France would be as willing to sell their nukes to terrorists. Iran and especially North Korea, since they are becoming a very economically isolated nation, are much more likely to.

Somehow I don't think France would be as willing to sell their nukes to terrorists. Iran and especially North Korea, since they are becoming a very economically isolated nation, are much more likely to.

691106[/snapback]

The French were second only to tRussia in arrming Saddam. They're much bigger whores than we are in the international arms market.

 

Did you look up the Rainbow Warrior bombing? The French run their own terrorists.

691124[/snapback]

So if you were to choose one nation to go to war with because of their involvement with terrorists, would you take France? Or Iran?

 

I'm curious.

So if you were to choose one nation to go to war with because of their involvement with terrorists, would you take France? Or Iran?

 

I'm curious.

 

Obviously France - they'd give up without a fight :lol

691136[/snapback]

That's what I thought. I'm sorry, but nobody else will agree with you that France is a bigger threat to the security of the U.S. than Iran is.