The United States and Syria, 1989–2014

By Ibraheem Saeed Al-Baidhani

A historical political study of the Syrian-U.S. relations during the period of Altaif Conference 1989 to the Geneva 2 Conference in 2014. And it seems that the traditional factors that ruled paths relations since 1949 has retained its importance and took the constancy type and continuity, and these factors are competing the U.S. and Russian interests in Syria and the security of Israel and the Palestinian cause. But that historical period that is the research revealed new factors and motives contributed in drawing U.S. policy toward Syria track, and perhaps the first is the effect of the Lebanese cause and the emergence of Hezbollah and the role of Iran in support of Syria and Hezbollah. And these are all factors that have been the focus of study in this book, even the crisis in Syria, which broke out in 2011, and developments and their impact on the course and the path of U.S. policy toward Syria. And read the reasons for the escalation and the causes of violence and the role of parties, Islamic extremist and Islamic state (ISIS) in this conflict. The Syrian crisis has become one of the most important areas of international and regional conflict and has important repercussions on the region and international relations.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Sep 29, 2015
• ISBN: 9781514402672

Ibraheem Saeed Al-Baidhani

Professor of modern history at the College of Arts, Al-Mustansiriya University, a specialist in the history of the United States and Europe (U.S. policy toward Syria). Has published seventy researches in areas of competence and published two books in English: • U.S. Policy toward Syria, 1936–1949 • U.S. Policy toward Syria, 1949–1958 And published twelve books in Arabic. Participated in many international scientific conferences inside and outside Iraq. Gave hundreds of historical and scientific lectures in the field of civil society, human rights, and culture of peace. Gave lectures on the culture of peace in the Iraqi Cultural Center in Washington and Stockholm.

Book preview

Copyright © 2015 by Ibraheem Saeed Al-Baidhani.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 08/28/2015

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

722149

CONTENTS

Historical Introduction about U.S.-Soviet Rivalry on Syria

Syrian Interests in Lebanon and Their Impact on U.S. Policy toward Syria, 1975–2005

Taif Conference

Syria’s Position on the U.S. Policy toward Iraq and Its Impact on U.S. Policy toward Syria, 1991–2003

Final Reading

U.S.-Syrian Relations through Oslo’s Nuclear Discussions and Bashar al-Assad Rule, 1994–2007

Syrian Nuclear File Arms Deal and Accused Syria Build a Nuclear Reactor, 1994–2007

Damascus Spring: the Arrival of Bashar to Power

The United States and the Repercussions of the Crisis in Syria in 2011

Turkey’s Position of the Syrian Crisis within the Framework of U.S. Policy Interests

Geneva Conference 2 on January 2014: An Important Turning Point in the Path of the Syrian Crisis and the American Position on It

Al-Qusayr Battle in June 2013

International and Regional Situations

Military Strike in October 2013

Interim Governing Commission

Arming the Opposition Policy

Final Reading

Future Reading

Historical Introduction

about U.S.-Soviet Rivalry on Syria

The U.S. competition Soviet about Syria of the most prominent factors which focused on the history of Syria, but we can say that this competition was the main driver of U.S. policy toward Syria, and toward the Middle East, was controlled by two issues in shaping U.S. policy toward Syria path. First, exaggerated fear sometimes penetration of the Soviet Union and Communism, and second, the security of Israel, which most other exaggeration, and therefore, the United States did not succeed in building a positive relationship with Syria. As part of the concerns of the penetration of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and particularly in Syria, the U.S. government has adopted a program of economic and military assistance to countries in the Middle East. This program back to 1949, as the U.S. president (Truman) announced in January 20, 1949, for his new project, known fourth point or technical assistance program, which includes providing technical and economic assistance to countries and regions economically backward in order to establish security and peace in the world program. The United States and worked on the entry into force of this program and the application to implement its policy in the region through these projects, and the purpose of the program, as indicated by the U.S. secretary of state (Acheson) as a way for the development of U.S. commercial markets overseas and to stop what he called the Soviet threatens the Middle East.

The United States and focused on the first two issues the fear of penetration and the Communist Soviet in Syria, and the second media and propaganda campaign against U.S. policy toward Syria, which created the atmosphere of Syria, rejecting U.S. policy, so the United States and directed its policy and discourse, informing that there is a great danger posed by Soviet influence (alleged) in Syria and that the United States stands deduced from this policy.

So Syria has rejected this project, which it sees as it allows foreign experts and workers in this program interference in the internal affairs of the country, as it allows only accept conditional aid, and this is what was rejected by Syria, as it was the Syrians are skeptical about the intentions of the United States, standing next to Israel, and that the Point Four Program found primarily to serve and support, as the United States ruled its policy toward Syria as far as the compromising Israel’s security, as well as concerns about the growing influence of Communism and the Soviet Union.

At a time when emerge that conditional aid to the United States aimed at protecting the security of Israel, the mounting public attitude and protests against and condemning the U.S. policy, and therefore, it forced the government to reject U.S. aid associated Fourth Point and announced its support for the positions of condemning the U.S. aggression against Korea. After World War II, and after the United States became one of the poles of international politics, I took looking for an opportunity to install a foothold or strengthen its presence in Syria, and perhaps the most prominent image to confirm it is competing with its allies and friends the British and French during the period of military coups 1949–1954, and was a coup Husni Zaim is the most prominent event that revealed the United States sought to install its leadership and its hegemony over Syria through the formation of friendships and alliances with leaders and the leaders of Syria, was the leader Hosni one of its allies, and continued conflict and competition on Syria during those years.

And confirms that the obsession of the United States from the fear of the influence of the Soviet Union and the spread of Communism, it was behind the Shishakli second coup in November 29, 1951, it was the support of Western countries, especially the United States, and he has done on the floor of the triple statement of 26 May 1950 and the draft defense for the Middle East in 1951, the United States and France supported the coup, after he saw that Shishakli is the only person who can put an end to activity with Ma’rouf al-Dawalibi, who is seeking with his group to push Syria toward the Soviet Union.

And that military planners Westerners have several attempts to cram the Middle East within their plan to contain the Soviet Union in 1951, and this is what made them lay more emphasis on the need for a local systems that are stable and loyal to the West, and what was the chaos in Syria is appropriate to their plans, for this was appropriate they strengthen the role and status Shishakli in power.

In contrast, the Soviet press described Shishakli second coup as a Western plot designed to drag Syria to participate in the defense of the Middle East project, and as payment Husni Zaim the price of the West’s recognition of his regime signed Tapline agreement, the Shishakli would accept the defense of the Middle East project price for the recognition of his regime.

In the U.S. policy toward Syria and the factors that govern the path, the United States has failed to supply Syria with arms and military equipment, which was seeking to obtain them, for fear of the use of such weapons against (Israel), and remained its position that despite the urgency of the U.S. military attaché (Clark) in Damascus that military assistance is to prevent erosion and aggravation to some extent pro-Communist and anti-Israel.

Lottery United States that the dictatorship of Colonel Shishakli well established, as all internal and external conspiracies failed, Shishakli describes that it is not pro-West in the full sense, and he had cooperated to some extent with the United States, at least more than his ancestors, and there is no successor in sight that would be more inclined toward the United States and there stood firmly against Communism, while his disappearance may serve hostile regimes to the West, and therefore painted its policy toward Syria and toward Shishakli and hostility to Communism, so you see the United States that it should do what it can to give his regime encouragement.

Thus, the Shishakli second coup is to pave the way for Syria to join the defense of the Middle East Project, to remove Syrian opponents of U.S. policy, and to prepare the conditions for the acceptance of economic and military aid from the United States. The United States welcomed the coup and saw it as an appropriate chance for the eradication of what it imagined as leftist Communist-growing crowds. The U.S. newspapers described the second Shishakli coup victory for the pro-Western policy.

While the New York Times described Ma’rouf al-Dawalibi, who was under focus of special attention from the United States, since he called in April 1950 to hold a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, (New York Times) has been described that the largest Arab leader of the anti-American.

After British-U.S. failed attempts to annexation of Arab States to the Middle East leadership project, British prime minister suggested Churchill set up the defense of the Middle East Organization, during his visit to Washington on January 14, 1952, the United States and British from their side said that during the meeting they need to achieve created their common goals of defensive organization in the Middle East as soon as possible, and that this proposal be submitted to the countries in the region.

According to the specializing U.S. expert description in Middle Eastern affairs Richard Nolte said the growing Communist threat against the West pushed to emphasize the importance of defense for the Middle East to keep the oil in natural resources, as well as the strategic importance of the Suez Canal. Moreover, there is another source of threat, which was the growing nationalist movements in the region against the continuation of the Western presence, so the increased American interest in Syria and the Middle East, and increased thinking to defend the region from what it calls the Communist threat.

In May 1953, U.S. secretary of state Dulles visited the Middle East on the basis of determining the nature of the Communist threat and work to face the threat, then see how the possibility of countries in the region to face the Communist threat, and do a regional defense procedures, revealing Dallas that the primary purpose of his visit strengthen the region against the Soviet threat through the creation of a new defense organization to the Middle East. On this basis, it prepared the U.S. State Department a new project it calls the northern belt to defend the Near and the Middle East.

During a visit Dallas to Syria, stressed that Shishakli has strong authority and that he understands the global situation, and therefore there is an opportunity to involve Syria in the Western projects through economic and military assistance and response was Shishakli the invitation of his country to participate in the defense of the Middle East Organization, he saw the need to meet the demands of Egypt in the evacuation of British troops from the Suez Canal is a basic introduction to cooperate with the West on the defensive organization. And therefore, we have to say that although the description Shishakli as one involved in the Western U.S. policy and politics; however, he did not hesitate to offer his point of view in the formulation of Arab action system.

In spite of all these attempts and pressure on Syria, the United States failed to do so, so it resorted to a new style represents to support the Baghdad Pact, a goal behind it to support him to employed the pressure on Syria and drag it to its policy and counter Soviet influence by them, and the worker who stands in front of improved U.S. relations with Syria is convinced Syria that the United States supports Israel, and it’s based anti-Arab policy, so they require a change in U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict to be a factor in improving relations with Syria, and at the same time, Syria’s relations with the Soviet Union piety and take root. Thus, the U.S.-Syrian relations are governed by the alleged Soviet influence in Syria, on the one hand, and the security of Israel, on the other hand.

Then the United States came to Syria in the first place by Eisenhower Project, which is a modified version in a new way to Baghdad Pact, aim to drag Syria into another version of the alliances, after the Baghdad Pact failed and all the pressures and conspiracies to achieve its objectives, the United States came from the draft of Eisenhower, which seems to be dedicated Syria primarily, he came in the context of the conflict and the Soviet-U.S. rivalry on Syria, and Syria is aimed at larger project as if it is the main goal, as President Eisenhower was trying to contain the other Arab countries. The objectives are focused on filling the void policy (alleged) after Britain’s and France’s withdrawal from the region and the fear of the Communist threat, and the West as well as concern over the fate of their detainees friends in Syria after a failed plot in 1956.

And that the timing of the declaration of principle came after the exposure of the conspiracy against Syria, accusing Baghdad Pact countries measure it. That is why Syria was in American thinking, or American new tactic testing ground, is of the opinion that Syria is politically, economically, and militarily and psychologically vacuum that must be filled, and believes that the danger lies in Syria and so 1957 is a watershed in U.S. relations with Syria, where decided President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles that they must take stronger steps to prevent the Soviet Union from hegemony on Syria, Syria and to avoid an attack on its neighbors, by expressing theirs.

On 22 March 1957 Bermuda Conference, the presence of U.S. president Eisenhower and British prime minister Macmillan in order to formulate specific plans for subversive activity against some Arab countries, And mainly against Syria, Egypt, and the United States announced its entry in the military commission of the Baghdad Pact, and this means that the United States took the express bias exposed along with Britain and France, to contain the national trend rejecting the U.S. projects, especially in Syria and Egypt, arguing generally what is called communist threat to stand region. In this conference, the participants agreed to direct economic pressure on Syria to force it to accept the principle of Eisenhower and overthrow the government.

The United States recognizes that its policies face obstacles in Syria, perhaps the most notable impact of the Soviet threat to Arab public opinion, and who planted in the minds of the Arabs that the United States anti-Arab unity and Arab nationalism, as well as that at a time when Moscow provided the same bias as well as the Arabs, the United States is biased toward the side of Israel, and the United States to refute the argument that it stands for Arab nationalism and Arab unity, directed the adoption of speech says it stands with the Arabs in their nationalism and unity, and that the Arabs relationship with the West brought them freedom and independence, and cited its support for Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and Sudan independence to say she stood by Arab nationalism, and that the unit is working with Syria with Egypt, which under Soviet influence constitutes a danger to Arab unity, so the United States does not support the efforts of one country to dominate other nations, the United States and cited its position on the issue of Suez says it does not allow any threat to the stability of the region and the protection of their countries. The United States was very concerned about the Egyptian-Syrian rapprochement.

Took the United States promoted through newspapers and exaggerated the Communist threat to Syria and described it as moving in Communism and Communists through on their way to occupy key positions in the government, and talk that the Soviet Union is ready to