The number of terrorist incidents, typically involving militants with unidentified terrorist affiliations clashing with security forces,, in Syria has been escalating over the past two and a half years . On September 12, 2006, the US Embassy came under attack by four unidentified Islamic militants . This is the second attempted attack on a Western building in Damascus, after the UN building was targeted in April 2004 .
Syrian forces are successful in most of their confrontations with Islamic militants, and the Syrian government may use this success to portray itself in a more politically attractive light in terms of its counterterrorism abilities, following consistent pressure from the United States over its support for terrorism in Iraq , Israel , and possibly Lebanon . In this most recent event, US State Department officials praised Syria’s positive response to the embassy attack. However, Syria’s response is more evident of an urge to “save face” and less of a “change of heart.”
The escalation of incidents with Islamic militants in Syria has raised questions regarding the groups responsible. The Syrian government typically releases limited information regarding terrorist attacks within its borders, and political considerations may impact what kind of information Syria portrays to the outside world about such incidents. On the morning of the attack, Syria used the phrase “Takfiri” to describe the group of militants responsible, a label commonly used by Syria to characterize all Islamist militants regardless of group of affiliation. Later, a Syrian official suggested that “Jund al-Shem” , an organization originally founded by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi and his associates in Afghanistan with possible al-Qaeda links, may be behind this attempted attack and other violent incidents in both Syria and Lebanon. However, outside observers will have difficulty confirming this attribution. Syria may have assigned such labels according to how it wishes to portray its domestic counterterrorism challenges to the outside world more than these labels reflecting the actual group affiliation of the terrorists involved.
Regardless of whether the militants who carried this out were linked to a multinational terrorist network, they demonstrated that, at the least, they may have picked up some tactics from al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in other countries. In the embassy attack, the militants attempted to use a two-stage technique similar to previous terrorist attacks against Iraqi targets and the Abqaiq petrochemical facility in Saudi Arabia . This technique is used on fortified structures, in which one vehicle bomb detonates, breaching the secure perimeter, allowing a second vehicle full of militants and/or explosives to enter into the secured compound. In this case, the second vehicle was a van filled with explosives, which were dismantled after the breaking-in stage of the operation was stopped.
Some media reports, both Western and Arabic, made much of the gratitude expressed by US officials toward Syria for their help in thwarting and investigating the attack. While this assistance is helpful, it does demonstrate that Syria could come down on the side of the US in its counterterrorism efforts. With the steady rise of terrorist incidents in Syria, the government has been put in an embarrassing position. The imperative to “save face” and demonstrate the regime’s hold over security and stability in Damascus and throughout the country will drive Syria to fight terrorists within its own borders, even as it contributes to or remains passive around terrorism in neighboring countries.
Syria’s record of state-sponsored terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon laid the foundation for the US’ steady pressure on Syria to disengage in its political agenda. However, Syria’s cooperation with such efforts has not been promising. Now, waving its own confrontations with militants on its own soil, Syria is employing “save face” tactics to undercut pressure from the US. Syria’s efficient response to the embassy bombing is not an invitation to discuss changing its political agenda. Rather, Syria’s response was satisfactory?action expected of any nation for any foreign diplomatic presence hosted within its territory.
