Iraq burns its bridges with Syria

Moubayed in the AsiaTimes, here

" ... Maliki blames both, (al-Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party) while Defense Minister Abdul Qadir Obeidi said the weapons used for the attacks had been "made in Iran". Syria's name emerged rather suddenly on Sunday, when a former policeman appeared on Iraqi state-run media, claiming responsibility for the attacks, saying they had been ordered by two Saddam loyalists based in Syria. .......

The contradicting remarks by Iraqi officials, the Syrian statement added, were adequate proof that far from being authentic, the entire ordeal was a fabrication of the Iraqi government. 

Syrian-Iraqi relations have improved significantly in recent months, following two visits by Maliki to Damascus and a visit this summer by Prime Minister Mohammad Naji Otari to Baghdad.  ....The Syrians reasoned they could play an influential role in restoring stability to Iraq, which was a high priority on Maliki's agenda, ...... helping Maliki to bring security to Baghdad was also a high priority for Damascus, and it played well into Syria's newfound relationship with the administration of US President Barack Obama. The Syrians reason that Obama wants peace in Iraq to facilitate a smooth exodus for US troops by early 2012. 

For their part, the Syrians want Obama to jump-start peace talks by applying strong pressure on the hardline Israeli government to restore the occupied Golan Heights to Syria. If the Syrians deliver on Iraq, Obama would deliver on the Middle East peace process. This win-win formula seemed to be working well since January, .....

If this relationship was going so well, why in the world would Syria approve - or turn a blind eye to - such a massive operation in Baghdad? There is not a single argument in favor of the Iraqi argument, because from where the Syrians see it, such an operation would be like shooting oneself in the foot. 

All it does is poison the neighborhood, negatively affecting both Syrian-Iraqi and Syrian-US relations. It additionally sends all the wrong messages since the bombings did not target a particular leader or sect, but a political system at large; one with which the Syrians have been comfortably cooperating since 2006. 

If this is the case, then why blame Syria? Clearly, from the contradicting remarks of Iraqi ministers, Black Wednesday puts many top officials in very difficult positions. It proves just how weak and divided they are - exposing them before ordinary Iraqis who are furious at the rising death toll and want answers from their elected representatives. .....

Nobody in Iraq wants to know who carried out the Wednesday attacks, because reality would expose dramatic mismanagement of government office. That in turn would drown many parliamentary hopefuls in January's elections. It therefore suits all officials to cover up for their shortcomings by blaming Syria. 

Nobody in the Iraqi government would dare blame Iran or Saudi Arabia, because of the financial and military clout these countries have in Iraq, along with their respective army of followers. Left standing is Syria, which happens to be Ba'athist and still has Iraqi fugitives on its territory........ 

In as much as the sending of an ambassador was symbolic for the Syrians, recalling him is equally symbolic, and will cause plenty of damage for the prime minister, who needs a broad constituency among Sunnis and Shi'ites in preparation for the elections."