The discussion and diplomatic activity over Syria grew quite intense today and it now seems that the White House has determined that it will not go to war with Syria, at least not immediately. This response addresses the immediate question raised by many as to why Syria has been playing such a dangerous game in recent days. PatioPundit likened it to rabbit going up against an eagle. The reason why Syria would take such a risky approach is not entirely unimaginable. Here are a few good reasons.

First of all, Assad has rightly assumed that the US does not have the political stomach for another war following its swift victory in Iraq. There are a few nation building exercises underway and the cost of war is substantial, as early as tomorrow Bush will refocus some of his own energies towards the US economy and another war would have a detrimental impact on any short-term plans to re-ignite an economy that, even now that Iraq is behind us, is weak. Secondly, the Syrians have gained a measure of confidence from the support offered by the French and the Russians as I suggested yesterday. Although that support might not translate itself directly into military support (although the Russians seem to be well out of control in this department) it would strengthen the Syrian case in the court of international approval. Thirdly, the Syrian leadership may go for the notion that it has very little to lose and gamble that they will survive defying the US forces, or gain such a measure of support and martyrdom in the Arab world that the gamble is well worth it. This may not be likely, but we should not underestimate the relative strength of radicals in Syria itself which brings me to the position of Assad himself as he does not have the firm grip on his country the way his father did. By importing an excess of terrorist elements into the country ranging from Hezbollah members to Baathists to Palestinians to al-Qaeda sympathizers, it may be hard to get a grip on whoever is residing in the country and who is crossing in and out. Border-crossing terrorists may get a hand from some disgruntled rank and file members of the Assad security apparatus as it is not inconceivable that many of them are not that impressed with the western educated son of Hafez Assad and may be considering a regime change of their own.

In any case a direct conflict appears to be postponed for now and Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell may well have engaged in a bit of rhetoric in order to ensure that Syria backs off, but also to set the stage for more direct steps in the near future. The argument is put forward that Syria will feel Saddam’s collapse in its pockets and may now be more susceptible to economic sanctions. Recent history however has taught us that economic sanctions are a pretty obsolete tool in dealing with tyrants, wherever they live. The stage has been set for regime change in Syria and over the months ahead we will be looking at an indirect way of achieving that, but that does not mean Syria is off Washington’s military radar screen. On the contrary.