Two American lawmakers, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-New York) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), recently set off howls of protest in Damascus by accusing Syria of staging a terrorist attack in its own capital to deflect international criticism of its long-standing sponsorship of some of the world's most lethal terrorist groups. Syrian officials claim that the mysterious bombing of a vacant former UN building in Damascus on April 27 was carried out by a band of Islamic radicals in retaliation for the help their government has purportedly given the United States in its war against al-Qaeda. Doubts about this version of events have been met in Damascus with feigned astonishment. "The shock that we received [from the bombing] in beautiful and peaceful Damascus . . . was comparable only to the shock of hearing two members of the US House of Representatives voicing suspicions," said Syrian cabinet minister Buthaina Shaaban.[1] Similar displeasure was expressed by media outlets throughout the Arab world. One columnist wrote that those who doubt Syria's story have a "dumb and dangerous" mentality.[2]

In fact, there are many reasons to doubt the Syrian claim. Here is the top ten list:

1. There is no conceivable motive for Islamists to carry out this attack. Al-Qaeda operatives or sympathizers have no beef with Syrian President Bashar Assad. His regime shares all of al-Qaeda's primary strategic goals (American disengagement from the Middle East, the still-birth of democracy in Iraq, etc.) and is the region's top facilitator of al-Qaeda operations. In Syrian-occupied Lebanon, al-Qaeda operates openly in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp. Even the State Department acknowledges that Syria is the preferred country of transit for foreign jihadis who infiltrate Iraq. Every other state in the Middle East is higher on Osama bin Laden's hit list.
   
   A local group, on the other hand, would have a strong motive for anti-regime activity, but Syrian Islamists would not have targeted a UN building because they do not want to make the international community even more disinterested in their plight. They would have targeted their own government.
   
   
2. No bona fide Middle Eastern terrorist group blows up empty buildings (the British ambassador's residence right next door was left unscathed).
   
   
3. The purported terror attack happened to occur while the White House was deliberating about how harshly to implement congressionally mandated sanctions on Syria. It certainly did not hurt Syria's cause that Reuters emblazed the words "Syria vows tough action against terror" atop one of its wire reports after the bombing,[3] or that the BBC filed a report entitled "Syria points finger at al-Qaeda."[4] An Associated Press headline spoke of "Syria's tight lid on extremism."[5]
   
   
4. Syria is the world's second most efficient police state in the world (after North Korea) and the Mazza neighborhood of western Damascus is one of the most highly secure areas in the country. It is highly unlikely that terrorists would try to smuggle a stockpile of weapons and a car packed with explosives into this neighborhood.
   
   
5. Syrian accounts of the attack are sketchy and have changed considerably over the past month. Shortly after the bombing, Syrian Information Minister Ahmad al-Hassan said the terrorist cell that carried it out was comprised of "four people belonging to various nationalities" (which he hinted was an indication of al-Qaeda involvement).[6] However, after denying persistent American requests to cooperate in the investigation, in mid-May the government suddenly announced that all four of the suspects were Syrian nationals and that they had no foreign ties.[7]
   
   
6. The two "terrorists" who were apprehended were put on state television to parrot Syrian propaganda. "The action that was carried out was an individual and personal effort made by me and the people who were with me," said one of them, adding that his motivation was the "open aggression by Israel, the United States, and all the infidel states against Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, and elsewhere."[8] Televised confessions in the Middle East are nearly always bogus.
   
   
7. None of Syria's claims can be independently verified. Fore example, an Associated Press reporter who visited the town (Artouz) where the perpetrators supposedly lived could not find a single resident who knew them.
   
   
8. Syrian officials shamelessly trumpeted the incident as evidence that terrorists don't like Damascus. "Syria, like others, has been exposed to terrorist actions," remarked Ahmad al-Hassan.[9]
   
   
9. American officials are skeptical of Syria's story and did not condemn the bombing. When US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was asked why there had been no official US condemnation in an interview with an Arab satellite station, she replied: "Every attack must be condemned . . . I don't think we fully understand what happened in Syria."[10]
   
   
10. Syria has done this before. Previous "false flag" operations allegedly carried out by Syrian intelligence include the 1989 killing of Lebanese President Rene Mouawad and a 1996 bombing of a bus in Damascus (used as a pretext to crack down on Lebanese Christians).

Notes

  [1] Tishrin (Damascus), 2 May 2004.
  [2] Al-Sharq al-Awsat, 1 May 2004.
  [3] "Syria vows tough action against terror," Reuters, 28 April 2004.
  [4] "Syria points finger at al-Qaeda," BBC, 29 April 2004.
  [5] "Attack raises fears that Syria�s tight lid on extremism is loose," The Associated Press, 29 April 2004.
  [6] "Syria gunmen could be al-Qaida operatives," United Press International, 29 April 2004.
  [7] "Syria says isolated Islamist group staged Damascus attack," Reuters, 16 May 2004.
  [8] Syrian Arab TV (Damascus), 15 May 2004. Translated by BBC World Monitoring.
  [9] Al-Sharq al-Awsat (London), 29 April 2004.
  [10] "Source: American hijackers had gone to Iraq to fight Americans," The Associated Press, 13 May 2004.