I don't know about you, but I suspect there is a deal going on between the Bush Administration and Syria. Those of you who have continuously watched the news and read the papers may think that I'm just delusional. You may be asking yourselves: why would the Americans, who have tried so hard to destabilize the Syrian regime through international pressure, actually want to cut a deal with it? Throughout this essay, I will try to answer that question.

First of all, what have the Americans learnt from Iraq? Well, their plans for post-war reconstruction aren't that impressive. More troops have had to be sent to Iraq to try and promote stability. Do they really want to have the same problems in Syria? After all, if the Syrian regime collapsed, the Sunni majority will rise, probably ally itself with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq and thus, Syria will become another base for warfare. This is the worst-case scenario. I don't even think the Americans are considering this because I sense that they are already working with President Bashar Al-Assad.

I have already made the suggestion that the Sunnis would rise to power in Syria if the Baathists fell, but what I need to clarify is how they would rise to power. The Sunnis who resent the Alawite-dominated Baathist government in Syria the most are the urban ones. The rural Sunnis have forged an alliance with the Alawites in the Baath Party, but according to recent statistics, the urban Sunnis are growing in number much more than the rural Sunnis. Thus, if the regime fell, they would be the obvious choice to fill the government's shoes. However, after more than four decades of anger and resentment, they may try to capture the state and hang on to it by any means necessary. Remember, where there is a lot of anger and resentment, there is a chance of extremism emerging. If that were the case, Syria may lose its secular image. The Americans must have taken note of this when considering possibilities for Syria's future.

Another factor the Americans are watching closely is secularism. Would they rather see a secular Syria or a religious Syria? A religious Syria could end up becoming much more anti-American than the current regime. In fact, the Syrian government has projected itself as anti-American recently in order to build up itself as the last bulwark of Arab nationalism. It is more of a tactic than a policy. Even if the Americans were to bring down the Baath Party in Syria, I doubt they would be supported by the people since a majority of Syrians tend to be more opposed to the Americans than their own government. The hostility against the USA would most likely increase in a religious state. This is all the more reason to seek a compromise with the current regime.

I am sure you have been hearing in the news that Bush administration officials have been meeting with Syrian opposition leaders. This is merely a signal to the Syrian government to change its behaviour. Washington knows that change can only come from within Syria and not with opposition leaders operating outside of Syria. Take, for example, a family. If a family has a fight, does it ask somebody from outside the family to solve its problem? No, the family members work together to solve the problem. Farid Ghadri's plan of forming a transitional parliament to oversee the reconstruction of the Syrian government is not going to help anything. Washington knows that it cannot put these people, who have very small links to the Syrian people, in charge because that will create more instability since they will be seen as Bush's lackies. In other words, if they want to avoid another Iraq scenario, they cannot consider an opposition whose base of support within Syria is miniscule.

What Washington is doing is pressuring Syria to reform itself. In some cases, this has worked. The Syrian government is engaging with people like Ayman Abdel-Nour, a Baathist reformer who wants to work with the President to bring about reform. You see, Washington knows that President Bashar Al-Assad is a reformer and that he can be dealt with. They understand that if he left the political scene, chaos would most likely ensue regardless of any well-thought-out plans.

Before Dr. Bashar succeeded his father, President Hafez Al-Assad wanted guarantees from the Americans that they will accept him. Of course, this was never publicised, but this was the case. The Americans gave Bashar legitimacy. They understand that he has been restricted by elements of his father's old guard in his pursuit of change. A primary example of this is when he was pressured by these elements to bring an end to the Damascus Spring in 2001. In some ways, the pressure on Syria may work to his advantage and the Americans are bearing this in mind.

Following US and French-led international pressure to get Syria out of Lebanon, the government of President Al-Assad came under pressure to accomodate the winds of change in Damascus. Due to this pressure, major figures in the old guard announced their resignation from the government and the ruling Baath Party at the June 2005 Baath Party conference. The result has been President Al-Assad's further consolidation of power. It is doubtful if this would have happened without pressure from Washington.

Following Secretary Rice's visit to Beirut, rumors suggested that her meeting with pro-Syrian President Lahoud indicated a deal was being done with Syria. She couldn't, of course, go to Damascus due to the atmosphere of the political situation. Many are now suggesting that there is a deal with Washington not to implicate Syria in the Al-Hariri assassination. Regardless of such a deal, I have maintained that I don't believe Al-Hariri's assassination was sanctioned by the Syrian government.

You have read my arguments, but there is something else to this situation. Why does the USA appear to be such an enemy of Syria in the media? My opinion is that for some people, the truth hurts. You see, the Americans cannot be seen to cozy up to Israel's primary enemy. You all know the stories of why the USA has a soft spot for the Jewish lobby and this is a reason why. But what is the big deal about Syria that the Americans care so much about? Simply stated, the Americans want to get Syria and Israel to sign a peace deal. A peace deal with Syria would hasten peace with the Palestinians and the possibility of a stable Middle East, which would make the USA's wealthy allies happy. The Americans knew that the chances of a peace deal between Israel and President Hafez Al-Assad's government were slim, so now they are trying to help Dr. Bashar install new blood in his government in order to change the Syrian policy to favour peace with Israel.

I could, after all, be wrong on this issue. If the Mehlis report puts blame of Al-Hariri's assassination on Syria directly, then I will reconsider my opinions on the matter. Such a report would mean that the possibility of Washington working with Damascus wouldn't be very convincing. In my opinion, change can only come from within and I believe the Americans know this. I even believe they knew this before the Iraq invasion, but unlike Iraq, Syria doesn't have a plethora of oil to be pumped. In that case, the risk of chaos didn't matter because the reward appeared to have been bigger, but there is no reward in an unstable Syria.