The Danger of Being an American in Syria
Since returning, I am often asked what it was like to be an American in Syria. Frankly, it provided for a fascinating experience, putting me in a very unique position that I would not have traded for any other.

Throughout my entire time there, I never felt any hostility as a result of being an American. This is very important to note. It says a lot about the Syrian people and it counters many misconceptions that Americans have about Arabs in general. Many Americans find it hard to believe that Syrians would treat an American so well. After this experience, I now hold the belief that you could take any person with a negative opinion of Arabs, Syrians, etc. from anywhere in the U.S., take them to Damascus for a week, and they would come away with a totally different outlook. It is that welcoming of a place.

It never takes long for Syrians to ask foreigners where they are from. With an American, this question is never where it ends. More often than not, their eyes light up when they find out they are actually talking to an American. For many, I was the first one they had ever met.

In general, Syrians hold a high level of respect for foreigners. They want foreigners to feel safe, happy, and have everything they need when visiting their country. Even after a brief meeting with someone, you may be offered a phone number and an offer to help with anything you need. Syrian hospitality ranks with the best of them.

Political and Social Issues
On an individual level, Syrians greatly trust Americans and other foreigners. For example, they often feel comfortable saying things to foreigners that they don’t to other Syrians, whether about political or social issues. So many times I heard, “you are an American, I can tell you this.”

On social issues, Syrians feel free to ask about liberal lifestyles in the U.S. or to speak more liberally about social issues in Syria. Syrian men, both young and old, were always searching for expert advice from an American guy about girls, both American and European. They would want to know how American guys “catch” girls or specifically how they could find a foreign girl in Syria. I was asked numerous times how they could go about finding an American girl to marry, in hopes of one day traveling to America. “My Syrian wife will not mind. Do not worry,” they would say. By this point, they would offer me another cigarette so I wouldn’t be able to get away too soon.

Syrian Opinions of America and its People
There is a vast appreciation for “America” among the Syrian populace. While of course there exists some bitterness toward U.S. policies and the American government, I actually met many more disgruntled Egyptians in Cairo.

In fact, based on my experiences, I would even go so far as to suggest that Syrians are more pro-American than many of the Arabs in countries that have good relations with the U.S., they are more pro-American than Europeans, and they are also more pro-American than Israelis. Additionally, I would say that in general, Syrians like Americans much more than they like Iranians, their government’s closest ally in the region. This is fascinating.

Syrians also have an intense curiosity about America. This includes culture, politics, marriage, family life, etc. Many would explain male-female relations in Syria and ask me to compare it to the U.S. Syrians will also often ask what America looks like and try to imagine how beautiful it must be with its giant buildings, sweeping avenues, and men and women mingling freely on the streets. I am never sure which city or town they are imagining, but it is always thought of in a very positive light.

I can’t even begin to count how many times Syrians told me that they want to visit or live in the U.S. They typically blame their inability to do so on “politics,” and rarely place the blame on the American government. If U.S.-Syrian relations continue to improve and the visa process is made easier, there would be a huge increase in the number of Syrians visiting and living in the U.S. Many would love to experience life in America. This is not because they don’t like living in Syria, but rather, it is because they see many opportunities in the U.S. that they may not have at home. At the very least, they would like to visit. This is not to engage in terrorism, but to enjoy the life, freedoms, and culture that they hear so much about.

American culture is never too far away in Damascus. McDonald’s and Starbucks may not be spread throughout the country (at least not yet), but American culture can be found in many places. All you have to do is walk into a movie store and you will be overwhelmed by American movies. They include old classics, as well as movies which have just hit the theaters in the U.S. (All for less than $1 each). Many Syrians watch these movies intently. Not only because they are better than Syrian and other Arab movies, but because in their mind, it also gives them a small taste of America. These movies provide Syrians with most of the images and ideas that they have of America. This could also lead to a somewhat flawed perspective.

A number of my closest Syrian friends also preferred listening to American music, rather than Arab music. I had to convince many of them to introduce me to more Syrian music, rather than being forced to listen to techno and American rap. The Syrian youth love their rap music. Oftentimes, they have odd ideas about which rap songs are popular in the U.S. It was always amusing hearing songs from the 90s and rap I never even heard of. They would be surprised that they knew the rap and techno scene better than an American himself.

The Obama Effect
In my very first report on January 31, I highlighted some of the positive comments I had been hearing about President Barack Obama. This was at the very beginning of his presidency, and at the time, I was not sure that these feelings would outlast my stay in Damascus. However, there continues to be a fascination and certain level of intrigue with Obama among many Syrians. Of course, there are those that dislike him, but they likely had these feelings since the beginning of his presidency.

One of my Syrian friends has the standard poster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on his living room wall, and right next to it is a “Obama for President” sign.

I was always amazed by how aware Syrians are of the world around them. Throughout their primary and secondary school years, they learn a lot about Syrian politics, the rest of the Middle East region, and also the West. It may be somewhat skewed at times, but it is much more than we learn in the U.S. about our government and the rest of the world during our early school years. Syrians, like Arabs in general, take a great interest in the rest of the world and have various mainstream media sources which make it easy for them to learn about it. Arab news channels discuss domestic and regional affairs, but also provide a significant amount of international coverage. This is something that we lack in the U.S. and certainly contributes to a lack of knowledge about the rest of the world.

Axis of Evil?
It is hard to believe that only a few years ago, Syria was a close runner-up to being a card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil, as declared by former President George W. Bush in January 2002. Perhaps unknowingly, many in the U.S. include Syria on this list, despite the official list only consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. But I suppose Syria moved up once Iraq was checked off the list.

How Syria is portrayed in the American media and how it is perceived among Americans is very far from the truth. Most Americans know very little about Syria, and what they do think is rarely anything positive. To put this in perspective, when most Americans think of Egypt, they imagine pyramids, camels, and a peaceful desert. When most Americans think of Syria, they imagine conflict and terrorism.

In the past three decades, there have been very few acts of terrorism on Syrian soil. This is starkly different from Egypt, where it seems like there is another attack on tourists every few months. Yet, Egypt gets perceived as having solid relations with the U.S. and thus is a safe and open country.

Despite being in a dangerous neighborhood and having its hands in some of the conflict, Syria is a very safe country. Syrians are very proud of this fact and it is something that the government also likes to pride itself on. I actually felt safer walking alone in the early hours of the night in Damascus than I do in Washington D.C. (or in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania for that matter). In Damascus, there is no risk of being robbed or stabbed. Violent crime is almost non-existent. Perhaps this is because of the lack of weapons, the consequences of such an act, and the nature of the people. Syrians have a difficult time understanding why Americans murder and steal from one another.

U.S.-Syrian Relations on a Personal Level
This spring was a very exciting time to be in Damascus, politically speaking. It kept what I care about and was reporting on exciting.

Syrians are still very hopeful that relations between the U.S. and Syria can improve. Many Syrians like America and what it stands for in the world, especially with a face like Obama that doesn’t seem so eager to dominate the Middle East and engage in wars which many Syrians have trouble comprehending. If relations can improve, they see the potential for new business to open up in their country if the giant political hurdles are eliminated. Additionally, they see an opportunity to not only travel to the U.S., but to possibly live and work there. Many Syrians share this dream, but are held back by political (and financial) reasons.

One particular question I heard time and time again from Syrians was: “Why does America think we are terrorists?” Soon after saying this, many expressed hope that things can change with Obama as president. Syrians are always at a loss for why the U.S. and/or Americans hold this belief. Thankfully, I never had to actually explain that I didn’t feel this way. They would always assume since I was living in their country, studying their language, and trying to learn about their country, that I didn’t share these opinions. This certainly made the conversation less awkward. They often wanted me to explain why this was, what I was doing to try to change it, and also how they could contribute.

Fortunately, Syrians are very good at separating the government from the people of a particular country. But this may be a characteristic of most people in the Middle East, along with others around the world. This is strikingly different from the U.S., where Americans often have a very difficult time making a distinction between the government and the people of a country, despite knowing little about the people. Syrians often ask what the American people think of Syrian people, and I always had a difficult time answering. The truth is that most Americans know very little, for perhaps little fault of their own. To their credit, most Americans do not see how Syria affects their daily lives, whereas Syrians often feel directly affected by U.S. policies and cultural influence.

Taking the U.S. for Granted
Syria is not unlike many other developing countries around the world, with most things more difficult to find and get accomplished. Since my return a few months ago, I have thoroughly enjoyed getting back to some of the finer things in life that had been so far away when in Damascus. After being abroad, you quickly learn to appreciate your own country, including the simple things you realize that you take for granted—the fresh air and scenery of central Pennsylvania; the clean and busy environment in Washington D.C.; standard driving rules; efficiency and a lack of bureaucracy; unblocked internet websites; and greasy food.

Freedom of Speech
A number of websites are blocked in Syria, which was occasionally problematic. Some of these include: Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, CouchSurfing, many Israeli websites, a number of Saudi news agencies, everything at Blogspot, and a variety of other blogs that have caught the attention of a Syrian official at one point or another.

What isn’t said, what shouldn’t be said, and what is actually forbidden to say can tell you a lot about the people and the system of government in a particular country. After living in a place with little freedom of speech, I now value what we are able to say freely in the U.S.

Criticism of the Syrian government is almost non-existent, even during private conversations with close friends. The two or three times I heard someone criticizing the government, I felt extremely uncomfortable. I remained as indifferent as possible, while at the same time, trying to change the subject. In Syria, you are never sure who is listening to your conversation in a cafe, listening to your phonecalls, or monitoring who you associate with. The Syrian intelligence service keeps close tabs on foreigners to make sure they are not doing anything questionable that could be perceived as a threat to the government. You rarely see them, but they are always there.

There is very little discussion about the Syrian president, the Assad family, and Syrian domestic politics in general. I always found myself frustrated with this, because I wanted to talk about these things. Not to debate them, but to try to learn as much as I could about Syrian politics as possible. However, Syrians were always extremely cautious about discussing such issues, even if they were in a positive light. In general though, Syrians hold much love for their president, Bashar al-Assad. Even as a foreigner, you couldn’t help but think positive things about him, seeing his glowing, smiling images plastered all over Damascus. In the typical Syrian fashion, I now have two large posters of Assad in my apartment living room. One reads “all of us are with you” and the other reads “we love you.” I also have a silhouette image of Assad wearing aviators on the back window of my car.

Syrian Food
The food in Syria is not bad, but it does get monotonous. My lack of cooking skills definitely made this more of a problem. There are a number of excellent, high-class restaurants in Damascus, which wealthy Syrians (and foreigners) can go to, with meals typically costing between $5 and $15. However, this takes the time of sitting at a restaurant and you can’t do it every day.

I eventually came to realize that my problem with food was made worse by the fact that much of life in Syria is focused around the family. Families cook at home and there is less of a demand for quick street food. Many friends of mine that were of a similar age still lived at home with their parents, and if not, they were already married. There is plenty of street food, but it is much of the same. I ate shawarma more days than I didn’t. By my last week, I was ready for a change.

Studying Arabic in Damascus
As far as studying Arabic, Syria is a great atmosphere for doing so. Damascus is a safe, relaxing, and friendly city to live in. European and American females also find it to be an easy place to live and are able to walk alone in the streets without any problems. Unlike Cairo, there is very little sexual harassment. If you are serious about studying Arabic, and have the time and money to do so, I think it is necessary to spend at least a year in a place like Syria. Five months can provide a good base, but longer is necessary. While I was anxious to get home when my date of departure was approaching, I was also jealous of some of the foreigners who were able to stay for the remainder of the year.

I would say that Yemen might be the only other place competing with Syria for the best place to learn the language in the region. Damascus is extremely cheap, it isn’t over-flowing with Americans, and Syrians are very patient with Arabic students, among a number of other reasons. During my entire time in Syria, I met less than ten Americans, most of which were traveling around the country for a week or so. It was always refreshing to meet a fellow American, but it felt good being in the minority for once.

From Damascus to Washington
In Syria, I felt that it was my responsibility to share with Syrians how America (and Americans) really are. Just as Syrians are not all terrorists, Americans do not all prescribe to the same ideas as Bush and Cheney. For a number of Syrians, I was the first American they had ever met. This meant that it was even more important that I represented Americans in a positive way.

I now feel that it is my responsibility to share with other Americans how Syria really is, or at least how I saw it to be after being there for a relatively short period of time. Perhaps more people will begin to follow similar steps, in taking a risk by studying Arabic in a place like Damascus.

If anyone is serious about studying the Middle East, then they need to travel to a place like Syria to learn the language, talk with the people, and experience everyday life. Words cannot describe what this experience has provided me with. It allowed me to learn things that can’t be taught in a classroom or read in any book.

While I miss the Syrian life, it also feels good to be back in the U.S. My last few days in Damascus I began getting anxious to return home and finally begin to put what I learned there to good use. After recovering from my reverse culture shock, I returned to my job at Foreign Reports, an oil consulting firm in Washington D.C. After taking the spring semester off to study Arabic in Damascus, I am now on schedule to finish my Masters in Middle East Studies at George Washington University next spring. I certainly have no regrets about taking a semester off and pushing my graduation date back by a year.

I greatly appreciated all of the positive and encouraging comments from the various readers of these reports. Despite enjoying to write them even if they were for my own eyes, the feedback helped keep me going. I took a lot of time choosing which people to put on this secret distribution list, so I am glad that some of you enjoyed them. On the list included: members of my family; friends and former classmates from Bellefonte, PA; friends, classmates, and professors from Penn State University and George Washington University; Facebook friends I have never met; some Arab friends; and Middle East scholars and policymakers mostly based in Washington.

For those who may have little interest or knowledge of the Middle East, I hope you learned something from these reports. For the countless number who never fully understood why I would want to travel to such a place, hopefully some of my reports helped you understand a little more about Syria and why I went there.

I want to send a special thank you to Joshua Landis, Juan Cole, and Helena Cobban for their willingness to post excerpts or entire reports on their blogs, which all carry a significant following. It helped the coverage of these reports considerably. It was an honor to have some of my words on the websites of such esteemed experts of the region.

My time in the Middle East is definitely not over. I have already begun plotting my return. I am eager to return to the region to explore more places and continue to learn new things and meet new people. There is much to learn about this complicated, yet extremely important part of the world. Inshallah, I will return soon.

Some have suggested that this sends the wrong signal to Syria at the wrong time. However, rather than imposing new sanctions, which would be sure to send mixed messages to Damascus, this was only a renewal of past sanctions. By doing so, the Obama administration is trying to demonstrate to Syria that it is serious about holding negotiations and exploring opportunities to improve relations, but that it is unwilling to start giving everything away for nothing.

The renewal of sanctions should not be interpreted as the Obama administration pursuing the exact same policies as the Bush administration, nor should it be interpreted as the U.S. giving up on its attempt to improve relations with Syria. Damascus likely expected that Obama would renew the sanctions. Thus far, the Syrian government has not issued an official public statement about the renewal. If it was surprised and overly dissatisfied by the action, it would have been quick to issue a response, whether by defending itself or by trying to downplay the news.

Syria may wish that the U.S. would move quicker, but at least for the time-being, the Obama administration is moving slowly and cautiously. The same can be said for the leadership in Damascus, which is also taking slow and cautious steps in opening up toward Washington. Obama has decided to engage in talks with Syria, but he still expects Damascus to make some key concessions before relations can actually improve. The tone and rhetoric has changed on both sides, yet both expect the other to take certain concrete steps at some point. Furthermore, if small, symbolic steps result in little action, it will not take long for one or both sides to become disillusioned with the process.

Renewal of Sanctions
Obama’s renewal of sanctions pertains to Executive Order 13338, issued by President Bush on May 11, 2004. The Bush administration renewed the sanctions on April 25, 2006 and February 13, 2008. They were up for another renewal on May 11 of this year.

The Executive Order primarily deals with blocking assets for various listed individuals, prohibiting the export of certain goods to Syria, and prohibiting any Syrian air carrier from providing air transportation to the U.S. These are not wide-ranging sanctions cutting off Syria from the rest of the world, despite Damascus hoping that any deal with the U.S. will eventually get them removed. These sanctions primarily hold symbolic, political, and economic value.

Even if the sanctions initially imposed by President Bush were removed by Obama last week, Syria remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, which applies more stringent sanctions. It is one of only four countries remaining on the list, with the others including: Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. (Iraq, Libya, and North Korea were removed from the list during the Bush administration). Syria is the only country that has remained on the list since its creation in December 1979.

This designation results in four major sets of U.S. sanctions: (1) restrictions on U.S. economic assistance; (2) a ban on arms-related exports and sales; (3) certain controls on exports of dual-use items; and (4) various financial restrictions. Some of these financial restrictions require the U.S. to oppose loans to Syria by international financial institutions such as the World Bank; prohibit Department of Defense contracts exceeding $100,000 with Syrian companies; deny individuals and companies any tax credits on income earned in Syria; and place restrictions on Syrian goods imported to the U.S. and on any U.S. citizen participating in any financial transactions with the Syrian government.

The Syrians Had No Illusions
In their second round of talks in Damascus in two months, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman and National Security Council Senior Director Daniel Shapiro once again met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem. With these talks and the renewal of sanctions occurring on the same day, it led some to believe that this demonstrates that Obama is offering nothing new, besides a change in tone and a willingness to engage in dialogue.

“This is a routine renewal unrelated to the trip. By law, the president must continue the national emergency annually in order for it to remain in effect,” a State Department official in Damascus reportedly told the Associated Press last weekend.

Syrian political analyst, Sami Moubayed, also referred to the renewal of sanctions as “routine” and suggested that Damascus was not surprised by the renewal, pointing out that some were getting a little carried away “purely for the sake of creating media excitement.”

“Renewal of sanctions is a routine process that was expected, and does not affect the Syrian-U.S. commitment to continue searching for common ground in the Middle East. Anybody expecting the U.S. to immediately waive sanctions on Syria was being unrealistic,” Moubayed argues. “The Syrians had no illusions in this regard.”

“Sanctions will not be dropped altogether so long as Syria remains committed to supporting Hezbollah and Hamas,” Moubayed wrote. “Just as the U.S. has its conditions, so does Syria. Only when both parties meet halfway will the reduction of sanctions become possible. The routine renewal of sanctions does not mean, however, that bilateral relations have hit rock bottom between Damascus and Washington. It just means that it will take time—and more dialogue—to repair all the damage done by the Bush administration.”

Moubayed is relatively close to the Syrian government and typically portrays the view from Damascus. His comments on the matter are much more insightful than a front-page editorial by the state-run Syrian newspaper Tishrin, which was picked up by the Western press as representing Syria’s official response. Under the headline “Syria Criticizes Renewal of U.S. Sanctions,” the Associated Press pointed to this editorial as Syria’s rejection of Obama’s decision. The editorial had harsh words for Obama’s decision to renew the sanctions, but interestingly, a few days after the Western press picked up on it, it could no longer be accessed from the Tishrin website.

Washington’s Complaints About Damascus
Obama’s Executive Order, signed on the day of Feltman and Shapiro’s visit (but made public the following day), states that the U.S. is renewing the sanctions “to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, maintaining its then-existing occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.”

Syria’s “supporting terrorism” relates to its support for Hizballah in Lebanon and Palestinian organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Damascus argues that these organizations represent a legitimate resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression. The U.S. considers them to be terrorist organizations.

Syria’s role in Lebanon is among the major complaints that Washington has with Damascus. With Lebanon’s parliamentary elections rapidly approaching, Lebanon was likely an important topic discussed during Feltman and Shapiro’s visit to Damascus. Many were surprised that Obama decided to send them so close to Lebanon’s parliamentary elections on June 7. Rumors are floating around that Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell may be visiting Damascus after Lebanon’s elections and that an American ambassador may soon follow. Mitchell and his team have reportedly applied for their Syrian visas, for a possible trip sometime over the next month. U.S. officials told the AP that this does not necessarily mean that Mitchell will make the trip, clearly demonstrating that much continues to hinge on how the elections play out in three weeks.

Syrian Influence in Lebanon
Some have argued that weakening sanctions a month before Lebanon’s parliamentary elections might have emboldened Syria in Lebanon, where it still maintains significant influence. To continue reassuring the pro-Western factions of the Lebanese government, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Hale visited Beirut the day after Feltman and Shapiro were in Damascus. “There is no deal with Damascus at Lebanon’s expense and no compromise on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon,” Hale said, after meeting with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. Hale also held talks with Saad Hariri, the leader of the March 14 alliance.

During a hearing on Lebanon in front of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs in late March, Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman discussed Syrian influence in Lebanon. “To the extent that you have normal relations between Syria and Lebanon, that’s great. And Syria will have influence in Lebanon, through the economy, through family ties, through history,” Feltman said. “You know, we’re not saying no Syrian influence in Lebanon. We’re saying let it be a natural, positive influence, the way that, you know, the U.S.-Canadian relationship works.”

Regardless of the fact that the Syria-Lebanon relationship will never operate like the U.S.-Canadian relationship, Feltman touches upon something that the U.S. is pursuing with respect to improving relations with Syria. The U.S. knows that it is unrealistic to expect Syria to eliminate its influence in Lebanon, but Washington hopes that it can at least limit its amount of negative interference.

Strategically, Lebanon is considered the “soft underbelly” of Syria. Maintaining significant influence there provides Syria with strategic depth vis-à-vis Israel. In addition to Syria’s use of Lebanon as leverage against Israel, Syria has historically used its position in Lebanon for political and economic influence. Especially in times of its isolation, Beirut has provided Damascus with a gateway to the outside world.

The Hizballah Proxy
Syria has a number of allies in Lebanon which allow it to exercise its influence in the country. Hizballah has been one of these allies since the organization’s creation in the early 1980s. It is debated how much influence or control Damascus currently has over Hizballah, but their relationship is critical for Syria’s influence in Lebanon, especially considering that Syria no longer has a military presence in the country. Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, Syria was pressured to withdraw its troops, after having a military presence in Lebanon for nearly 30 years. Without a physical presence, Syria now has to rely on its Lebanese “proxies” to exercise its influence.

Over recent years, Hizballah has begun to outgrow its role as a Syrian proxy. After gaining its own autonomy and influence, Hizballah has in effect turned into a partner of Syria, as opposed to a pawn that Damascus can control to fit its own interests.

Rather than being ideological allies with strong and unbreakable interests, Syria and Hizballah likely use one another equally to achieve their own goals. Syria’s relationship with Hizballah has enabled Damascus to punch above its weight in the region. Consequently, this helps strengthen its hand vis-à-vis Israel. Regardless of how much influence Damascus currently has over Hizballah, its ties to the organization remain a significant bargaining chip for Syria, in any negotiations with the U.S. and Israel. Despite it being unclear what the U.S. and Israel realistically expect from Damascus, its relationship with Hizballah is undeniably a card that it is holding close. At the moment, Syria is likely trying to reach a balance between proximity and distance. This helps demonstrate the power of this card, while also providing Damascus with some plausible deniability if things get out of hand in Lebanon over the next several months, with Hizballah potentially leading the charge. Among other reasons, Syria is not willing to give up its main leverage against Israel, without reassurances that it will at some point be able to regain the Golan Heights.

Syrian Support to Hizballah
Damascus provides political, economic, military, and organizational support to Hizballah. It also facilitates the organization’s relationship with Iran, providing a transit route for Iranian military equipment to Hizballah in Lebanon. The organization is able to raise significant funds on its own, but it does receive large subsidies from Tehran. Most estimates suggest that Iran provides the organization with around $100 million per year, with much of this support for Hizballah’s military wing. The strongest form of aid that Damascus offers Hizballah has largely been its political and diplomatic support for the organization. Ending its financial support would largely be inconsequential to the success or failure of Hizballah.

What Syria is not able to provide Hizballah with, Iran certainly can. Iran has provided Hizballah with an ideological, political, and religious reference since the organization’s creation, a few years after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. For the Iranians, Hizballah has historically been a realization of its own campaign to spread the ideals of its revolution. On the other hand, for the Syrians, the organization has historically been a tool used to protect its interests in Lebanon and elsewhere. Supporting Hizballah has allowed Syria to guarantee that no political force in Lebanon gets too powerful, it provides Damascus with the ability to indirectly strike at Israel and the U.S., and it also helps preserve the Syrian alliance with Iran. Whereas the strategic link between Syria and Hizballah could theoretically be loosened if Damascus finds it to be in its strategic interests, Iran and Hizballah will likely remain strong ideological, political, and religious allies.

In his historical overview of Hizballah, Augustus Richard Norton argues that Syria’s “strategy in Lebanon has consistently followed the principles of Realpolitik. To paraphrase the dictum of Lord Palmerston, Syria has neither eternal allies nor perpetual enemies in Lebanon. The Hezbollah leadership understands this and maintains its strategic alliance with Damascus, ever mindful that alliances of convenience are expendable by definition.”

Indicative of his meticulous nature, former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad handled his relationship with Hizballah with extreme caution. In the 1980s, he often remained suspicious of the organization and its close relationship with Iran. As Hizballah’s power and influence began to grow in Lebanon, Syria tried its best to contain it. While Hafez used Hizballah to his advantage, he was always skeptical of the rise of a revolutionary and religious organization outside of his control in Lebanon.

Hafez made a point to not meet with Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, relying on his intelligence service in Lebanon to work directly with the organization. On the other hand, Hafez’s son, Bashar, created a very public relationship with Nasrallah. Bashar came into office in 2000 with little experience and he relied to a large degree on the legacy of his father to legitimate his rule. In an attempt to gain legitimacy, credibility, long-term stability, and perceived strength in the region and at home, Bashar began associating himself with characters such as Nasrallah. This provided the younger Assad with his own record of opposition to the U.S. and Israel, which sits well with the domestic population in Syria and elsewhere in the region. Bashar’s “pro-Hizballah” credentials helped him solidify his position in the region, but it has also cost Syria in its relations with the West.

Hizballah as a Reality in the Region
In an interview with French television on May 3, President Assad urged the Obama administration to reach out to groups that the U.S. lists as terrorist organizations such as Hizballah. “I think if you want to solve the problem you can’t go about saying: ‘This is good and this is bad, this is evil and this is democratic, this is human rights and this is not politics,’” Assad said. “Politics is when you deal with reality; when you deal with influential parties to influence the position in a positive or a negative way.”

Assad has repeatedly argued that it does not matter whether the West brands Hizballah as a terrorist organization, but that it will have to come to recognize that Hizballah carries significant weight in Lebanon and around the region. This was an idea that the Bush administration was unwilling to face and something that the Obama administration is pursuing cautiously. Regardless of the U.S. opinion of the group and its activities, it is a political reality in Lebanon that the U.S. will somehow have to work with. If not working with it directly, the U.S. must understand that it exists and that its influence cannot be eliminated, whether by political games or military strength.

Why Lebanon is Important
Lebanon can not only be seen through the small prism of Syria’s desire to control the country and the U.S. and its Arab allies trying to thwart this influence.

In the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs, Gregory Gause argues that the Obama administration needs to understand the rules of the local game of politics in the region, where there is a “traditional contest for influence among regional states.”

“It is played out more in political terms than in military ones, although the possibility of violence is never far. The players are the stronger regional powers (Egypt, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey) and the playing fields are the weaker powers (Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories) whose governments cannot prevent outsiders from interfering in domestic politics,” Gause argues. “The tools of influence are money, guns, and ideology—and the scorecard is judged by the political orientations of the weaker states.”

Lebanon, which is militarily weak and open to foreign intervention, has been the site of proxy wars and struggles for influence in the region for some time. Regardless of the level of violence that this ignites or perpetuates, the struggle for influence in Lebanon will continue. While improved relations between the U.S. and Syria could contribute greatly in deciding how this struggle is manifested, Lebanon may also be the true test for U.S.-Syrian relations. Only time will tell if they can both pass the test.

The U.S. is maintaining a close eye on both of these elections, taking small and cautious steps with each of these dates in mind. Some of the Obama administration’s key policy actions toward Iran, Lebanon, and Syria are contingent upon the outcomes of these two elections.

For the purposes of this report, I will focus on the Lebanese parliamentary elections. While the prospect of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad losing the election in Iran has generated much excitement, the Lebanese parliamentary elections will more directly affect Syria, and specifically, its future relations with the U.S.

Lebanon’s Parliamentary Elections
There are no reliable and independent polls in Lebanon and the complexity of the electoral system makes it extremely difficult to predict the outcome of the upcoming election. Experts and politicians can guess all they want about how the results of the elections will play out, but the only reasonable expectation is that the outcome will be close, regardless of which side comes out on top. Many are fascinated by the prospect of a Hizballah victory, trying to predict what this would mean for Lebanon and the rest of the region.

Lebanon’s parliamentary elections are exactly five weeks away. The outcome will not only affect Lebanon’s domestic political situation, but it will also play a significant role in shaping the dynamics currently going on in the region. Will Saad Hariri’s pro-Western and anti-Syrian, March 14 alliance come out on top once again? Or will Hizballah and the rest of the pro-Syrian, March 8 opposition win in an upset? What will each of their reactions be to the outcome? How will Syria and the U.S. react to the results?

The Lebanese parliament is made up of 128 seats. Four years ago, and only a few months after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, Lebanon held its last parliamentary elections. Following the 2005 elections, Saad Hariri’s March 14 alliance held 72 seats, Hizballah’s March 8 alliance held 35 seats, and the Christian bloc led by General Michel Aoun held 21 seats. Since 2005, four members of the March 14 alliance have been assassinated, bringing their number of seats down to 68. The March 8 alliance and Aoun’s bloc joined arms in February 2006, providing the opposition with 56 seats.

March 8 vs. March 14
The two major alliances currently in Lebanon, “March 8” and “March 14,” are relatively informal blocs which formed along with events which took place in 2005. Allies and sworn enemies have been known to make dramatic shifts in Lebanese politics over the years. If an opportunity presents itself for one part of the alliance to gain politically, the current alliance framework could easily shift, especially following the June elections.

The March 8 alliance dates back to March 8, 2005 when various pro-Syrian factions held a massive demonstration in downtown Beirut, standing in support of Syria and accusing the U.S. and Israel of meddling in Lebanon’s domestic affairs. The March 14 alliance dates back to March 14, 2005, the one-month anniversary of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, when another major demonstration was held in downtown Beirut, demanding an end to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

In the 2005 parliamentary elections, which were held on four consecutive Sunday’s beginning on May 29, the March 14 alliance capitalized on the anger over the assassination of Hariri and the momentum that they were provided with after successfully pressuring for Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon on April 26 of that year.

The elections in five weeks will demonstrate how much support the March 14 alliance has been able to sustain over the past four years.

Hizballah Victory?
The upcoming elections will also be Hizballah’s first major test of public support following its conflict with Israel in the summer of 2006. Any win by the current opposition will be portrayed in the West as a victory for Hizballah and its Iranian and Syrian supporters. Without getting too far into the complexities of Lebanese politics, it is not this simple.

Despite Hizballah getting tagged as the leader of the March 8 alliance, the party itself only won 14 seats in 2005. Hizballah’s two major allies in the broader alliance, the Amal Movement (Shi’a) and the Free Patriotic Movement (Christian), also each won 14 seats. Saad Hariri’s Future Movement won 36 seats. The second largest faction in the March 14 alliance along with Hariri’s Future Movement, the Progressive Socialist Party led by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, won 16 seats. Other minor parties filled in the rest of the allotted seats.

In the upcoming election, Hizballah has decided to only run 11 candidates, three less than the number of seats that it holds in the current parliament. These candidates are likely to easily win their respective races, given the movement’s overwhelming support in these particular Shi’a districts. However, this demonstrates that much of Hizballah’s success depends on the success or failure of the other parties in its alliance. Specifically, Hizballah is relying on the success of its Christian allies in Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), which finds itself in some highly competitive races.

While it would be interesting as an observer to see what Hizballah would do with a “victory” in the parliamentary elections, and how the rest of the world would react, it still has much ground to make up against the March 14 alliance.

The Day After
Lebanon is currently in the middle of a vibrant election campaign, with money pouring into the small country of only four million people. At least to date, it has faced no violence or assassinations, which are fairly typical in Lebanese politics.

Regardless of the current calm, the political situation in Lebanon will remain fragile leading up to, and following, the elections. It will be important to watch what the victorious bloc does with its power and how the opposition bloc reacts to its loss. Furthermore, the true test for Lebanon will lie in the post-election politics. Following the election, the new Lebanese parliament will be tasked with choosing a new prime minister, forming a new cabinet, and it will have to decide if the opposition bloc will have a veto power in the cabinet. These issues have led to instability and violence in the past and there is no guarantee that it will not happen again.

Despite being part of the current opposition, Hizballah has high expectations for this election. Many analysts have also set high expectations for the group. This may either be a realistic assessment of the political landscape in Lebanon, or it may simply be the intrigue of Hizballah as an organization and as the potential leading bloc in Lebanon.

Much of the current discussion is about Hizballah and the possibility that it could reverse the majority won by the March 14 alliance in 2005. However, what will happen the day after? If the March 14 alliance is once again victorious, will Fouad Siniora remain on as prime minister or might Hariri be willing to make the jump himself? If the current opposition is victorious on June 7, it will have to find one of its Sunni allies to put forward as the next prime minister. According to Lebanese law, the prime minister is required to be a Sunni, the president a Christian, and the speaker of parliament a Shi’a.

During the campaign, Hizballah has emphasized its willingness to form a national unity government if it is part of the new leading bloc in the parliament. It is still unclear whether Hariri would agree to this. If the March 8 alliance does win, it will likely be forced to reach across into the March 14 alliance to find a viable Sunni prime minister.

Secretary Clinton Visits Beirut
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her first visit to Beirut last Sunday. In a swift two-hour visit, Clinton met with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, but did not meet with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. However, she did visit the grave of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in downtown Beirut, where she spoke briefly with his son and the leader of the March 14 alliance, Saad Hariri.

As Lebanon’s English-language Daily Star reported, Clinton “generated the expected sound bites.”

Despite refusing to speculate about what the U.S. would do if Hizballah wins the election, she emphasized that the U.S. desires to support “voices of moderation” and that she hopes that the results reflect a “moderate, positive direction.” These are all code-words for opposing Hizballah, but she made sure not to publicly take a stand against the organization, in a wise attempt to stay out of the politics of the intense campaign.

The U.S. is concerned that if Hizballah is victorious on June 7, that this would not only increase Hizballah’s power domestically in Lebanon, but that this victory would also increase the influence of Iran and Syria in Lebanon and around the region.

The short visit and lack of meetings indicates the cautiousness that the Obama administration is pursuing toward Lebanon leading up to the election. In the case that the opposition is victorious, the U.S. may be preparing itself to use President Suleiman as its primary contact in the Lebanese government. However, if Hariri’s March 14 movement can remain in the majority, then it will be easy for Washington to hold onto this well-established relationship.

Many in the region and in the U.S. are quick to count out Hariri and company. This may partly have to do with the lack of a charismatic figure prone to making headlines like Hizballah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, who finds it fairly easy to do so. Hizballah is organized, disciplined and it is very good at playing the media to its advantage, especially in the region. Additionally, it may also have to do with Hariri’s U.S. and Saudi supporters, who many find it fun and easy to root against.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Many pro-Western politicians in Beirut are concerned that any future U.S. deal with Syria could come at the expense of Lebanon. Clinton used her visit to Beirut to publicly guarantee that the U.S. “will never make any deal with Syria that sells out Lebanon.”

Clinton’s visit was coincidentally the four-year anniversary of Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon, after having a military presence in the country for nearly three decades (from 1976 until 2005).

The March 14 alliance was not reassured when, three days after Clinton’s visit, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon announced the release of four Lebanese generals arrested four years ago in connection with the 2005 assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The release of the generals was based on a report that the prosecutor in the case recently submitted which stated that there was insufficient evidence to hold the men any longer. The report mentioned that some witnesses have since modified their statements which incriminated the four that were being detained.

It will remain unclear until the final report is issued, but this may be the beginning of the end of the Tribunal. Some have suggested that the end of the Tribunal may be the cost of improved relations between the U.S. and Syria. Damascus wants the U.S. to help it get rid of this giant black cloud that has been hanging over its head for the past four years, if it hopes to improve relations.

The March 8 alliance was provided with a surge of confidence after the Tribunal’s announcement. Hizballah has tried to capitalize on the announcement with only five weeks before the election. As is fairly standard when any big issue occurs in Lebanon or in the region, Nasrallah took to the airwaves on Friday evening. When he has something to say, most Arab news stations cover the entire speech. No figure in the current majority in Lebanon’s parliament can get this kind of airtime and attention to frame their message like Nasrallah can. Whether they agree or disagree, much of the region pays attention.

Hariri’s Softening Rhetoric
Saad Hariri held a press conference on the day of the announcement where he said that he welcomes any decision issued by the Tribunal and that this is one step toward achieving justice, despite pointing out that “some Lebanese are not relieved by this decision.” Hariri was put into a very difficult position five and a half weeks before the election, being forced to publicly, and likely reluctantly, accept the Tribunal’s decision of releasing the only four detained individuals for the assassination of his father four years ago. He could have lashed out at the Tribunal, at Hizballah, or at Damascus, yet he refrained from doing so.

Hariri holds a strong and personal animosity toward Damascus for what he sees as its role in the assassination of his father in February 2005. Nevertheless, there has been a clear and noticeable change in his rhetoric regarding Syria over the past two months.

Hariri held a few separate interviews in March where he commented on Syria. In an interview on March 24, Hariri praised President Obama’s willingness to engage with allies and adversaries in the Middle East, particularly with Syria. “The president has inspired a lot of people and the way his administration has been doing business in the region, by calling and engaging allies, by sending Senator (George) Mitchell, by engaging to understand the region better, even their engagement with Syria, all of this is positive,” Hariri said. Over the past four years, Hariri has been one of the strongest public proponents of Syria’s continued isolation.

In a separate interview the previous week, he said that Lebanon would be the first to benefit from an Israeli-Syrian peace deal and that the West warming up to Syria would not occur at the expense of Lebanon. “We would be the first to benefit from the peace, because when Syria signs, a lot of things would change,” he said.

However, when asked about his plans if Hizballah wins the vote in June, Hariri smiled and replied: “I will go on a long vacation.” Hariri has promised not to join any government led by the current opposition. It is unclear whether he will stand by this promise or not.

Hariri has a very close relationship with both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. The softening in Hariri’s rhetoric toward Syria is an important development that can be seen within the context of Washington and Riyadh’s recent rapprochement with Syria. Hariri’s comments were around the time of the Arab “mini-summit” in Riyadh on March 11 and the Arab Summit in Doha on March 30.

Regional Stakes in Lebanon’s Election
The hands of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the U.S. are not too far away from the action right now in Lebanon. How Syria and Saudi Arabia both handle themselves before and after the elections will significantly influence their future bilateral relationship. The Lebanese elections may be the first major test of the sincerity of the recent “rapprochement” between Syria and Saudi Arabia. The same can be said for the U.S. and Syria. The Obama administration is currently watching to see if Damascus can “pass the test” in Lebanon, where Syria has held a heavy hand for more than 30 years.

Syria will likely be on its best behavior in Lebanon over the next several months so that it can maintain the solid position it currently sits in with the West. However, Syria also does not want to totally lose its influence in Lebanon, so it will try to tread carefully. Damascus may still be calculating how to best use the influence that it does have, to its fit its own interests. But if it overplays its hand like it has in the past, there may be more to lose this time around.

All of the major Arab news stations carried Obama’s speech to the Turkish parliament on Tuesday. (However, they seem to carry most of his speeches. I have seen more Obama speeches in Damascus than I have in Washington). His speech to the Turkish parliament focused on the U.S. relationship with Turkey, but Obama also used it as an opportunity to reach out to the Muslim world.

Turkey is critical to several key U.S. political, economic, and strategic interests, both in the East and in the West. Furthermore, Turkey finds itself in a unique and strategic position to influence events in the Middle East. It borders Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and it has useful ties with both allies and adversaries of the U.S. In fact, Turkey may be one of the keys to achieving some of Obama’s policy goals in the region. One important piece of this puzzle involves Syria.

Turkey’s Importance to Syria
Despite being enemies throughout the 1990s and coming close to war in 1998, Turkey and Syria have since patched up their relationship. The current Turkish and Syrian governments have built solid and mutually beneficial ties with one another over the past few years. Turkey’s decision to reach out to Syria when the U.S. and Europe were trying to isolate Damascus has proven to pay dividends. It helped facilitate Syria’s opening with Europe and eventually with the U.S. Syria’s willingness to work with Turkey has provided it with a potential mediator with Israel, as well as providing it with another ally in the region, to balance its dependence on Iran.

A recent report released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggests that Turkey has recently become a “strategic outlet to the international community” for Syria. With few allies, Syria sees Turkey as “an important political and economic partner and a path out of its international isolation.”

Israeli-Syrian Negotiations
Only one sentence about Syria made it into Obama’s speech to the Turkish parliament, but it is worth noting. “We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you’ve done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel,” Obama stated.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Turkey in early March, she stressed publicly how critical of a role Turkey has played, and should continue to play, with Israel and Syria. The Bush administration did not like encouraging such contacts, nor did it have any plans to get involved in the process.

Turkey began mediating indirect negotiations between Israel and Syria in the spring of 2007 (i.e. Israeli and Syrian officials did not meet face-to-face). The talks ended when Syria broke them off after the recent Gaza conflict in January. This was the first time that the two sides had serious negotiations since their last talks broke down in 2000. To put this into perspective, Bill Clinton was still president in the U.S. at the time, and Hafez al-Assad was still president in Syria. Much has changed since then. (Yet of course, much still remains the same.)

If negotiations between Israel and Syria do resume, and if Turkey again mediates, it remains unclear what kind of role the U.S. will play. The Syrians have been extremely vocal about wanting the U.S. to get involved. Damascus knows that it cannot place too much of a wedge between the U.S. and Israel, but it will at least try to give itself some breathing room and some leverage in negotiations. It also knows that if the U.S. is involved, it can use American influence to get back the Golan Heights, as well as bring itself out of political isolation. It is widely understood that if Syria reaches a settlement with Israel, this will also mean improved relations with the U.S.

The Obama administration supports the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria, yet Obama is in no rush to bring in the U.S. as the leading mediator between the two sides. For the negotiations to eventually succeed, U.S. involvement is required. However, it seems that the Obama administration may use Turkey’s potential mediating role in the short-term and only get involved after some substantive initial progress has been made, and after its own relations with Damascus can improve further.

The Lame-Ducks Are Gone
Syria was waiting for much of 2008 for a new president to take office in Washington. It was waiting for the latter part of 2008 and for the first few months of 2009 to see what the new Israeli government would look like. Now that the leaderships are known, the true jockeying can begin.

More specifically, now that the lame-duck Israeli government is gone and the new government is firmly in place, it will become clear how much U.S.-Syrian relations do not operate in a vacuum. How Israel, Syria, and the U.S. interact with one another will be important to keep an eye on.

In a recent interview with Lebanon’s Al-Safir newspaper, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was asked about Syria’s position toward Israel, now that he has to face the likes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. “The Syrian position is not connected to domestic Israeli developments…regardless of it being leftist or rightist,” Assad said. “For us, peace is a strategic option. Any Israeli changes are merely tactics. We have laid certain foundations for peace.”

Regardless of public comments and desires of the leadership in Damascus, much of its future does depend on the positions and direction that the new government in Israel takes over the next several months. While Syria can certainly play a role in its own destiny, there are also many critical factors outside of its control. The tide of Israeli politics has greatly affected previous Israeli-Syrian negotiations and it will continue to affect them in the future.

Previous Negotiations
It is unclear how much insight past Israeli negotiations with Syria can lend to how relations might shape out under the new Netanyahu government, but it is worth reviewing a few important points.

Talks between Israel and Syria began in 1991 but were suspended in early 1996, a few months before Netanyahu and his Likud Party won the Israeli elections in May 1996. Beginning in mid-1997, under Netanyahu, Israel held indirect and secret negotiations with Syria. Several draft peace accords were drawn up, but no deal was signed. The indirect contacts ended in December 1998 when early Israeli elections were called.

How Netanyahu will conduct himself with his second chance in office is anyone’s guess. During this year’s election campaign, Netanyahu took a hawkish stance toward Syria and its chances of regaining the Golan Heights. He took a similar line toward negotiations with Syria before entering office in 1996. However, he decided to start secret and indirect negotiations after his first year in office the last time around. No agreement was signed, but his government apparently agreed, in principle, to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

Netanyahu was defeated in the May 1999 elections by Ehud Barak. Barak led negotiations with Syria in late 1999 and early 2000, but once again the talks ended without an agreement. These promising negotiations were mediated by the U.S. Close to a deal, the talks ended after Barak decided that he could not take the domestic political risk of returning all of the Golan Heights. The talks collapsed, all over a few hundred meters of land along the Sea of Galilee.

Talks did not begin again until the indirect negotiations under the leadership of Prime Minister Olmert in the spring of 2007. These talks, despite making progress, ended as Olmert was about to leave office.

Israel and Syria both confirmed in May 2008 that they had been having indirect negotiations mediated by Turkey for about a year. Over the past few weeks, President Assad has made several comments about how far indirect negotiations with Israel went under the Olmert government. Apparently, the negotiations went further than most people had initially expected and even thought after the talks ended in January. There were reportedly agreements on the normalization of diplomatic relations between the two, at least in principle. Additionally, some complicated technical matters which could potentially halt talks had been resolved.

Assad has decided to take it upon himself to publicly explain how far negotiations came with the previous Israeli government. Assad hopes to have negotiations pick up where they left off. However, Netanyahu wants to start fresh, in an attempt to strengthen his hand and not be tied down to something that a previous government may have agreed to.

The Lieberman Factor: How Important?
Israel’s new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is creating quite a stir in the region. Many Arabs are very concerned by the face of the new Israeli government, with Lieberman actually getting more play in the Arab media than Netanyahu himself. It remains unclear how important Lieberman is, however. The attention that he is receiving may be somewhat deceiving.

At the handover ceremony at the Israeli Foreign Ministry on April 2, Lieberman had strong words about the Middle East peace process, in general. “Whoever thinks that he will achieve something by way of concessions—no, he will only invite more pressure and more wars,” Lieberman said. “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

In an interview on April 1, Lieberman said that he opposes a withdrawal from the Golan Heights in any peace deal with Syria. “I am very much in favor of peace with Syria, but only on one basis—peace in return for peace,” he said. Lieberman added that there would be “no withdrawals from the Golan during my time and hopefully not at any time.”

The argument of “peace-for-peace” put forth by Lieberman appears to be different from Netanyahu’s “peace-for-security” argument of the past, and much different from the “land-for-peace” argument institutionalized in the early 1990s. The Syrians will not settle for much less than a full return of the Golan Heights in any deal with the Israelis.

An editorial by Israel’s Haaretz on April 3 argued that Israel may end up paying a high price for Lieberman. “Anyone who expected that being made foreign minister would refine Avigdor Lieberman’s crass manners was proved wrong by his first appearance in the role,” the editorial said. “The world will dismiss him as an insignificant loudmouth not worth talking to. In all governments, the foreign minister’s job is to address international decision-making and propose diplomatic solutions. There is no need for another defense or ‘strategic’ minister, which Netanyahu’s government has plenty of.”

The editorial continued: “The state has a bigger problem than Lieberman. If the government is seen as reluctant to achieve peace, renouncing the basic principles of the peace process that are supported by a sweeping international consensus, Israel will find itself isolated. It will have difficulty raising support for its vital needs, beginning with the struggle against the Iranian nuclear program. Israel cannot afford to pay such high tuition fees for Lieberman’s education in the Foreign Ministry.”

While at the end of the day, Netanyahu may be the one that is primarily controlling Israel’s relations with Syria, Lieberman’s words will quickly reach the airwaves around the region. It has already started a small war of words in the Arab world about the intentions of the new Israeli government. Not only will Lieberman create a more skeptical and less willing partner in Syria, but he may also lead to some key Syrian misperceptions of Israeli policies and intentions.

Lieberman also risks straining the U.S.-Israeli relationship. What would a more strained relationship between these two key allies mean for Syria? Would it provide Damascus with an opening, or would it tie its hands?

Many observers are watching closely for any sign of possible friction between the U.S. and Israel. For now, it may be a little wishful thinking. But in the end, it may be beneficial for the relationship, as well as helping to serve U.S. interests in the region.

Netanyahu and Obama
Prime Minister Netanyahu is expected to be in Washington at the beginning of May and will meet with President Obama. Obama will reportedly visit Israel in June, after his scheduled trip to France. Rather than taking all of Lieberman’s hawkish statements as the official Israeli line, Obama will wait to hear Netanyahu state his positions for himself when he visits Washington in less than a month.

There is significant speculation about what the future will hold for Israel, Syria, and the U.S., especially considering that there is new leadership in Israel and in the U.S. While Obama provided fresh hope for Syria, Netanyahu has instilled new fears of a major setback.

Is the hawkishness of Netanyahu being blown out of proportion? If not, how will Obama deal with this relationship if more hard-line views begin to prevail in Israeli politics? What would a more hard-line Israel mean for U.S.-Syrian relations? These are all very important questions, with real answers yet to come.

Two important factors still remain unclear: (1) how much pressure Obama will place on Netanyahu to push forward with Israel’s negotiations with Syria; and (2) how prepared Obama is to become directly involved in this process. In the end, the Syrian track may provide Obama and Netanyahu with the most promising opportunities to achieve some of their desired goals in the region, both for different reasons. For Obama, it may be his best shot at achieving progress in the Middle East, at least in the short-term. For Netanyahu, it might provide him with an opportunity to set aside the Palestinian track. It could also provide Netanyahu with a way to minimize the possible confrontations with the Obama administration over the Palestinian issue. Additionally, the Syrian track may be easier for the Israeli government and Israeli public to swallow.

Peace between Syria and Israel could potentially have broad implications for U.S. and Israeli interests in the region. Obama seems to at least recognize the importance that Syria plays in the region, which is a positive step.

The U.S.-Syrian Dialogue Continues
Yet another U.S. congressional delegation arrived in Damascus for talks with President Assad on April 5. This visit largely slipped under the radar of most U.S. media outlets, but on the day of the meeting, it was the top news story on the website of the official Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA). The delegation was led by Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and also included Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC). It marked the fifth U.S. congressional delegation to hold talks with Assad in Damascus since Obama took office.

“We had a candid and constructive meeting,” the delegation said in a statement released after the talks. “We are optimistic that, although we have substantial differences, we nonetheless have shared interests in the region.”

U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is scheduled to be in the region next week. This will mark his third visit since being named Obama’s special envoy in late January. Syria was not listed on his official itinerary released at the beginning of this week. Many are wondering when his first stop in Damascus will be. Syrians take notice every time that he skips stopping in Damascus when he is in the region.

Over the past few weeks, there has been considerable speculation about possible future meetings between American and Syrian officials. Will George Mitchell visit Damascus on his next trip to the region? When will Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem exchange another handshake? Will Obama and Assad meet one another this summer? (The last time that a sitting American president met a Syrian president was in March 2000 when President Bill Clinton met President Hafez al-Assad in Geneva.)

Syrian Praise for Obama
Following Obama’s speech in Turkey on Tuesday, Syrian Foreign Minister Mouallem praised Obama’s approach to the Middle East.

“We welcome the positive speech which indicates a clear inclination towards a two-state solution, including a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” Mouallem said on Tuesday. “The speech reflects Washington’s encouragement for a lasting peace settlement on all tracks and signals the importance of the Turkish role in this respect, unlike the position of President Bush who was against the resumption of indirect talks between Syria and Israel.”

One day after praising the new U.S. approach to the Middle East, Syria’s foreign minister went to Tehran to hold talks with Iranian leaders.

According to the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), in a meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Tehran on Wednesday, Mouallem said: “Tehran-Damascus relations are strong and deep-rooted, based on modest and logical stands that have managed to find strong supporters and solid foundations within the Islamic world relying on resistance against the arrogant and oppressor powers.”

Turkey and Iran
At least for the time-being, diplomacy is providing Damascus with an open door to walk through, if it decides to take the opportunities, along with the risks involved in walking through that door. The recently released CSIS report on Turkey argues: “Whether Turkey could supplant Iran as the primary strategic ally of Syria at the current juncture remains unclear. Some senior Arab government officials have suggested that Turkey could play an important role ‘accompanying’ or guiding Syria through a process whereby it realigns with the pro-Western camp.”

While many analysts still seem to be focused on the over-simplified argument that Syria can be “peeled” away from Iran, it may be more realistic for the U.S. to push for a Turkish role in providing Damascus with a solid alternative to Iran and a reliable mediator with Israel.

Syria has been receiving special attention from the U.S., as well as from some Arab states that it has not had the best of ties with over recent years. As many have put it, Syria is “coming in from the cold.”

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made landmark visits to both Saudi Arabia and Jordan in March. In Riyadh, he met with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah. This meeting was dubbed an Arab “mini-summit.”

One indication of how far Damascus has come along in the past year are the circumstances surrounding the last Arab Summit, which was actually held in Damascus exactly one year ago. Saudi Arabia and Egypt snubbed the summit by sending unusually low-level officials. Lebanon boycotted it completely. Only 11 leaders joined Assad in Damascus, with 10 others deciding to remain at home. (17 leaders attended the Doha Summit). Syria blamed the U.S. for pressuring Arab leaders not to attend, noting that then-U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia the week before. Overall, last year’s summit was an embarrassment for the leadership in Damascus. It was a clear example of the serious Arab divisions at the time, as well as Syria’s role in these divisions.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was reportedly the first head of state from the 22-member Arab League to land in Doha for this summit. Sunday newspapers in Syria all had similar photos and headlines across the front pages. The picture was of Assad being greeted in Doha by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. The headlines all mentioned promoting Arab reconciliation. As opposed to last year’s summit in Damascus, Syria is now being catered to from all sides and “Arab reconciliation” seems to be the tag line of the day.

Syria and Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is trying hard to pull together the Arab ranks, in an attempt to use its leadership role in the region to push forward with Arab reconciliation, primarily in its efforts to isolate Iran.

Over the past few years, Saudi King Abdullah has not made his frustration with Damascus and his personal dislike for Assad a big secret. That is why their meeting was so important. At the very least, it is an attempt by Saudi Arabia to paper over some of its differences with Syria. It is unclear how sincere or long-lasting this rapprochement may be. In the meantime it appears that Riyadh, at least from its perspective, has decided to deal with the lesser of two evils (i.e. Syria) in an attempt to shut out the true poison of the region (i.e. Iran).

Despite very few details surfacing from the closed-door meeting in Riyadh, several photos of Assad and Abdullah laughing and shaking hands were on the front pages of Arab newspapers and continue to be shown on Arab news channels.

The Associated Press reported last Friday that during the meeting Saudi Arabia offered Assad a financial package to offset Iranian aid to Damascus if it does decide to break its ties with Tehran. Abdullah also reportedly promised Assad that Saudi Arabia would push to mobilize Arab support to back Syria in its future negotiations with Israel.

Syria and Iran
A few days after Assad’s appearance in Riyadh on March 11, there were a few interesting headlines from Iranian (English) news sources. (“Syria Loyal to Iran after Riyadh Meeting” and “Syria Portrays Brilliant Prospects for Ties with Iran”). Of course, this may not mean much. But I found it interesting and somewhat amusing. The Iranians typically believe that they are true masters at propaganda. But it is usually easy to see through. They are either trying to reassure themselves or trying to demonstrate to the U.S. how difficult its strategy of trying to place a wedge between Iran and Syria will actually be.

The Iranians are clearly uneasy about the new attention that Syria is receiving from the West and from Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. Tehran will continue to brush it off as insignificant and stress how strong its relationship is with Damascus. Syria will also try to keep reassuring the Iranians. However, Iran is well aware that it is the major target of much of the attention that Syria is currently receiving. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia are not hiding this point at all.

Syria’s relationship with Iran has severely cost its relations with some of the more “moderate” Arab states, such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Syria has used its relationship with Iran to protect itself from political isolation, as well as for various economic reasons. Iran has used the relationship in its attempt at political expansionism. For example, through Syria, Iranian influence can more easily penetrate Lebanon and it can more easily jab the Israelis.

Some Syrians I have spoken with have had some interesting thoughts on their country’s relationship with Iran. I have been surprised that most Syrians do not have too many positive things to say about Iranians, in general. But they believe that Iran has stood by them over the years, when others have left them or pushed them up against the wall. In their opinion, leaving the Iranians now may mean betrayal of a friend that has always been there for them.

If any movement on this front does occur, Syria will be slow to cut its ties with Iran. As Syria’s dialogue with the U.S. continues, Damascus will continue to try to work on both sides of the fence to keep all options open. It will also likely remain on its best behavior over the next few months, so as to maximize the benefits it might be able to reap from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, etc. Assad will hold his most powerful cards close to him, until he is guaranteed something very lucrative in return. Some of these powerful cards include Syria’s close ties with Iran and Hizballah.

Splitting up Iran and Syria has been a major goal of the West for many years. However, their relationship runs deeper than most typically recognize. Their close relationship dates back to the beginning years of the Iran-Iraq War, which began in 1980. When other Arab states (and the U.S.) supported Iraq, politically and militarily, Syria supported Iran. However, this may have largely been a strategic calculation by the Syrian president at the time, Hafez al-Assad.

Hafez al-Assad worried that the war would exhaust both Iraq and Iran, which in his opinion, would only end up benefiting Israel. Furthermore, Assad was concerned that Iran might be defeated by Saddam, leaving Syria cornered by two key adversaries: Iraq and Israel. Assad opposed the war, but wanted to make sure that it ended in Saddam’s defeat. In 1982, Syria closed its border with Iraq and shut down the Iraqi oil pipeline that runs through Syrian territory and ends at its Mediterranean port at Baniyas. This was in exchange for cheap oil imports from Iran and trade agreements that gave Syrian companies a very lucrative export market in Iran. The close relationship between Damascus and Tehran continued after the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988.

When the relationship was fostered in the early years of the Islamic Revolution, many doubted Assad’s judgment. However, Patrick Seale wrote in Assad’s quasi-official biography, Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East, that “while many shuddered at the rise of the Ayatollah, Asad sided with him in a striking demonstration of political foresight and strategic flexibility.”

In recent years, when Syria faced significant pressure and isolation from the likes of the U.S., it had a friend in Tehran that it could turn to for support.

Arabs vs. Persians
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad eventually decided to save himself the trouble and the potential embarrassment by not attending the Arab Summit as an observer. (Iran is not a member of the Arab League). He is typically only a distraction at these events. (Even President Assad did not invite him to last year’s summit, despite inviting the Iranian foreign minister). Ahmadinejad was invited this year by the Qataris, but there was some serious Arab opposition to his attending of the conference. Some Arab delegations even suggested that they would send lower-level officials if Ahmadinejad attended. The only image I have seen of Ahmadinejad on Al-Jazeera the past few days has been him in attendance for Iran’s World Cup qualifier match against Saudi Arabia in Tehran on Saturday. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia upset Iran 2 to 1 in the match.

Bashir and His Arab Friends vs. the ICC
Despite keeping everyone guessing until the last minute, Sudanese President Omar Bashir decided to make a grand appearance in Doha. Since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for his arrest on March 4, Bashir has already made three other defiant visits to Egypt, Eritrea, and Libya. Many were not sure if he would risk showing up in Qatar.

Bashir has proven to be a major distraction to some of the most serious issues of the Doha Summit. It affected the summit agenda, as well as the coverage it has received in the Western and Arab media. Al-Jazeera followed every step of Bashir after he stepped off the plane in Doha. On the tarmac, he received red-carpet treatment and was met by the Qatari emir in open arms. (Jordanian King Abdullah II reportedly left the summit early because he felt slighted that he was only met by the Qatari prime minister, and not the emir himself). I have been intrigued by how much Al-Jazeera has covered the case of Bashir. It has been one of the top news stories since the ICC announced its decision on March 4.

The New York Times may have said it best: “Arab leaders may be divided over which Palestinian faction to support and what to do about Iran’s rising influence, but they have found one cause to rally around: protecting the president of Sudan from charges that he orchestrated the rape, killing and widespread pillaging in Darfur.”

Perhaps it is just me, but there seem to be better Arab leaders to create an artificial sense of Arab unity around. Sometimes the symbolism of “Arabism” trumps pragmatism in the politics of the region. It is unfortunate that supporting Bashir was one of the only issues that the Arabs could all agree on in Doha.

Egypt vs. Qatar
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak decided to snub the Qataris and not attend the summit. This provided yet another distraction. Reasons for his skipping the summit are being widely discussed. Egypt and Qatar have recently been at significant odds over a variety of regional issues. They have taken different approaches to the Palestinian issue and Egypt has been critical of Qatar’s proximity to Iran. Mubarak has also been unhappy with Al-Jazeera, which is funded by the Qatari government in Doha. The channel was extremely critical of Mubarak during the recent Gaza conflict. For his part, Mubarak reportedly pressured for the Qatari emir not to be part of the “mini-summit” in Riyadh. The Qataris have recently been trying to increase their role as a mediator in the region. Perhaps Mubarak feels that this is his territory.

Egypt’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki released a statement on Sunday saying that Mubarak’s absence from the summit is due to “sticking points in relations between Qatar and Egypt.” Zaki added: “A brother should respect his brother and not harm him, even with a word.”

At a news conference on Saturday, Qatari prime minister (and foreign minister) Sheikh Hamid bin Jassem bin Jaber Al-Thani was asked about Mubarak. He said that he respects Mubarak’s decision, but added that he wished that Mubarak would have decided to enrich and enlighten the summit with his ideas.

In a random shop in Damascus today I stumbled upon Monday’s edition of Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper. The main front page photo was of Mubarak picking fruit off of a tree at a farm in Egypt.

Qadaffi vs. Abdullah
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi took it upon himself to create yet another spectacle of himself at an Arab Summit. This distraction was unanticipated, but it is not surprising considering who it came from. It also isn’t too significant, but it adds some comic relief.

As the Qatari emir was introducing the summit, Qaddafi interrupted him to address the Saudi King. “I seize the opportunity to tell my brother Abdullah, you have been evasive and scared of confrontation for six years. I want to assure you today not to be scared. I am telling you after six years it was proven that lies stand behind you and your grave awaits you,” Qaddafi said. “You were created by Britain and protected by the U.S. I consider the personal issue that lasted between you and me is over and I am ready to visit you as well as receive you.”

When the Qatari emir tried to silence the Libyan leader by shutting off his microphone, Qaddafi insisted that he was allowed to speak. “I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level,” Qaddafi shot back. After this, he proceeded to get up and leave the meeting. After his outburst, he reportedly went on a tour of the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha.

This was not the first time that Qaddafi and Abdullah had a public spat. At the 2003 Arab Summit in Egypt, the two leaders exchanged words until President Mubarak shut off their microphones. They both sat down and met with one another later in the day yesterday to “reconcile.” Most Arab newspapers today had a photo of this meeting on the front page. Next year’s Arab Summit is scheduled to be in Libya.

Qaddafi came to the opening session of the summit dressed in a bronze-colored ochre robe. He also wore a cap and sported dark black wrap-around sunglasses. This is fairly typical of his wardrobe. He has no official title, but he refers to himself as all sorts of dignified titles. He has been the leader of Libya since he took over in a 1969 military coup at the age of 27.

Qaddafi has a habit of creating a spectacle at these meetings. At the 1988 Arab Summit in Algeria, he wore a white glove on his right hand. He explained to the conference that this was so he could avoid having to soil his hand by shaking hands with all of the Arab traitors in attendance. At the same conference, he pulled a white hood over his head when Jordan’s King Hussein spoke. In a closed session, he pulled out a cigar and started blowing smoke into the face of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd. Despite being a non-smoker, he also sat smoking a cigar in the middle of the opening session at the 2004 Arab Summit in Tunisia, demonstrating his contempt for the other leaders. He leaned toward Egyptian President Mubarak, who was sitting next to him at the time, simply to point out that he was smoking an American cigar. After this, he proceeded to leave the meeting in the middle of the opening speech. In his address at last year’s summit in Damascus, he mocked Arab unity. “Our blood and our language may be one, but there is nothing that can unite us,” Qaddafi said. “We hate each other, we wish ill of each other and our intelligence services conspire against each other. We are our own enemy.” Indeed, he may have had a point. In 2004, an alleged Libyan intelligence service plot to assassinate Saudi King Abdullah was uncovered.

Arab Reconciliation?
Unfortunately, the Arab Summit came down to being fraught with public distractions and largely only showcased individual personalities, rather than providing any real progress on Arab reconciliation. Despite it still being unclear what was discussed behind closed doors, Syria’s position within the summit became overshadowed by other distractions and odd antics.

In President Assad’s address to the summit on Monday, he said: “Up to this moment, our relations have been subject to our personalities and moods as individuals, and consequently are subject to misunderstanding, misjudgment, and are set back every time we face a particularly sensitive problem. The continuation of what we have started does not tolerate severe and unexpected fluctuations.”

More significant than the Arab Summit itself will be how the regional dynamics shape out over the coming weeks…. Stay tuned.

I have been busy during the past few weeks. I had my final exam at Damascus University two weeks ago and then traveled to Aleppo for a short vacation. I also recently moved into a new apartment, where I think I have finally found what I was looking for.

Arabic
My few days in Aleppo were enjoyable, but it also made me realize how much I feel at home in Damascus. Even after a few days, I was anxious to return “home.” The sandstorm in Aleppo probably didn’t help matters. Around half of the Aleppo residents had masks covering their faces from the sand/dirt that was blowing around. If the Syrians there were wearing the masks, then I probably should have as well. I definitely felt the effects for the next few days.

**link to photos from Aleppo, etc.**

Despite going to Aleppo for a vacation, I had a big decision to make before I returned to Damascus. This decision dealt with where I wanted to study Arabic for the next month. In the end, I decided to focus my Arabic lessons with my private teacher and take a month off from Damascus University. I will decide in a few weeks whether I will do another intensive month with the private teacher or return to the University for the next level.

With my private teacher, I set up a one-month intensive program to study Colloquial Arabic (three days per week) and Media Arabic (two days per week). Each lesson is for three hours. It is much more expensive than the University (about $15 per hour), but I don’t like to put a price tag on learning Arabic. The learning environment and the structure and content of the lessons definitely make it worth it. It is also much more efficient to learn in private lessons.

I have had a number of people e-mail me questions about studying Arabic in Damascus. I think that it is important that I try my best to share my experiences with others, as well as respond to these emails individually. There is definitely a shortage of information in the U.S. about studying Arabic in Syria. If any of you do travel here to study Arabic, I would highly recommend taking private lessons with my current teacher, Basel Nejem. He is a well-known private Arabic teacher in Damascus. He is now preparing to open up a language institute called the Levantine Language School.

Where to study and what to focus your studies on is always a big dilemma when studying Arabic. It is no different here in Damascus. While it is nice to have an official University name on your resume, as opposed to studying Arabic with some seemingly random guy, I ultimately had to decide what was best for me. My end goal is being able to communicate with people in a widely-recognized dialect and to understand the news, both in print and on television. Some feel that they are progressing when they move up another level at the University and receive a nice certificate indicating their success. But eventually you hit a point where you realize that this isn’t what it’s all about. This is especially the case because I only have a relatively short period of time here.

When it hit March, I quickly realized that I had to make a move if I wanted to get where I want to be by mid-June. Sometimes I think that my time here is moving a little too fast. I learned a lot in my month at the University. However, it wasn’t allowing me to spend as much time studying the Syrian colloquial dialect as I wanted to. It is necessary to keep up with Standard Arabic, but I don’t want to return to the U.S. and find it difficult to carry a basic conversation, but know all of the intricate details of Standard Arabic grammar. I will see how far I can get with colloquial this month and then gauge where I want to go for my last two months in Damascus.

New Apartment
On March 1, I moved into a new apartment. I will stay there until I leave Damascus on June 10. The apartment is in an area called Muhajireen ( مهاجرين ‎ ), which means emigrants. It is unclear who used to emigrate there, but apparently Palestinians once did. With many things in Syria, it is difficult to find reliable information. Everyone has a different theory. Muhajireen is a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. (Only non-alcoholic beer is served in the shops). It is a fairly wealthy area, but I have yet to see another foreigner there. The area is scattered up the side of Jebel Qassioun, where the highest point in Damascus can be found. Up from the main street in Muhajireen, there are eight parallel “avenues” which run up the side of the mountain. I am on “Sixth Avenue,” which is very close to the top. The commute up the mountain is sometimes difficult, but the amazing view of Damascus from my balcony seems to make it all worth it. Most taxis refuse to go beyond the main street, which is already slightly up the mountain. The taxis that do make the journey up the hill usually struggle. Some end up stopping halfway and then begin to argue that it is illegal to go any higher.

My flat is in a five-story apartment building with all newly-renovated and nicely-furnished rooms. I am on the top floor and, of course, there is no elevator. Most others living in the building are Muslim families. My rent is 25,000 Syrian Pounds per month ($550), as opposed to 16,000 SP per month ($350) with the family I was previously living with in the Old City. It is well worth the jump in price. It has a television which is typically tuned into Al-Jazeera, a huge terrace with a great view of the city, three bedrooms (but only two beds), and a large living room with a few paintings of Paris hanging on the walls. The only problem is that I have been unable to find tape in Syria that is strong enough to hold up my various maps of Syria and posters of President Assad. All in all though, the apartment was quite the find. One of my Syrian friends helped me get it at a solid price because he is friends with the building owner. Apparently, three Austrian girls before me paid 50,000 SP. I went from living with ten people sharing one bathroom to living alone and having two bathrooms. It also has consistent hot water, which is sometimes quite the novelty in Damascus. For the first two weeks, I made sure to shower every day; simply because I could. The drinking water is also clean, at least after allowing the sink to run for about ten seconds.

Sometimes I find that it has too much space for just me, but it is relatively short-term, and it is a good place to put up visitors. [For the past 5 days, I have been blessed by the presence of two fellow GW classmates that are doing research on the banking sector in Syria for their final capstone course. They marked the 9th and 10th Americans I have met in Syria. I will spare their identities, since they are in the country for at least 24 more hours].

ATM’s
Before I moved in, I created a “3-month and ten-day contract” with the owner of the apartment building. Under the contract, I had to pay for the entire duration of my stay on the day that I moved in. This was so I wouldn’t bail out after a month. At first I was a little uneasy about this, but it has worked out. The only problem I encountered with this was trying to get the money for it. I went to the same bank that I always go to, Banque Bemo (Saudi-French). Syrian ATM’s only give out 10,000 SP ($215) at a time. Since I wanted to withdrawal 100,000 SP (also to pay the Arabic teacher), I thought I could go to one of the personal bankers and request the money from them. However, they told me that I had to use the regular ATM. This was exactly what I was trying to avoid…

I waited for a woman to finish using the ATM and then I stepped up, starting the slow and painful process of taking out 10,000 SP at a time. At 50,000 SP, an employee handed me a giant envelope to put in my stack of 1,000 SP bills. At 70,000 SP, the ATM came to a loud, grinding halt. I turned around, only to see about 10 people waiting to use the ATM, all with their arms crossed and giving me very unfriendly looks. I felt somewhat embarrassed getting a huge stack of 1,000’s out of the ATM and then have it stop working. While some of them were trying to get money out to feed their children that evening, I was withdrawing an average Syrian yearly salary, for reasons unknown to them. Perhaps their looks were understandable, but I couldn’t do anything about it. I felt very “foreign” at this moment.

The bank manager promised that the ATM would regain consciousness after a few minutes. After a very awkward 20-minute period of waiting around the ATM, it started back up. However, I soon found out that I hit my maximum for the day. (Thanks, PNC). I took my final receipt out of the machine, looked straight down at the floor, and exited the bank, with my bulging envelope of cash firmly in hand. I would worry about the rest of the money another day. Luckily, the building owner understood.

Personal banking in Syria is an interesting experience. “ATM etiquette,” at least as I know it in the U.S., does not exist here at all. At first, it is a little overwhelming. During the afternoon, there is always a large group of people in line at most ATM’s. They hover around the ATM and watch your every move. At night, there are obviously less people waiting to use the ATM. However, even if there are only one or two people behind you, they too watch your every move, sometimes approaching you at an uncomfortable distance. This happens to everyone here and isn’t only because I am a foreigner. However, I am sure that they are even more intrigued by the transaction of a foreigner. Americans give a lot of space and privacy to someone using an ATM, consciously standing outside or looking away when someone else is completing a transaction. It’s a different game here.

At my preferred bank, there is an outside ATM and also one inside that operates during regular bank hours. I still haven’t been able to figure out why the one outside is often crowded with as many as 10 or 15 people during regular bank hours and the one inside might only have one person in line. I always go inside, where there is an employee watching over the ATM machine. There is also no such thing as a line in Syria. ATM machines are no different. If you are not aggressive, you might stand in “line” for hours on end. You eventually figure out that you have to push along with the others and stand your ground, regardless of how many times you have to elbow the old woman beside you.

Most transactions here are done in cash, with very few places accepting credit cards. There are many ATM’s, but there are a few conditions. First, they aren’t everywhere. Second, they don’t always work. Third, they don’t always give you your money or your card back. I trust the Saudi-French bank, but have been told not to trust the Syrian state banks with foreign ATM cards.

Holidays
The weekend in Syria is on Friday and Saturday. Some countries in the region still hold their weekend on Thursday and Friday. But others have changed to Saturday and Sunday, most likely in an attempt to keep up with the outside world of markets, etc.

Syrians like their holidays. Today is Mother’s Day, an official state holiday. If it didn’t fall on the weekend, it would be a day off. Thursday was Teacher’s Day, also an official state holiday. Most places were closed on Thursday. This made for a nice, three-day weekend. Holidays on March 8 and March 9 made for a four-day weekend just two weeks ago. March 8 was Revolution Day, marking the anniversary of the 1963 military coup, when the Ba’ath Party came to power. March 9 was the celebration of Prophet Mohamed’s Birthday.

Today is also Nowruz, the Persian New Year. Fortunately, President Obama has now made this very well-known. If you haven’t seen Obama’s special video message to the Iranian people and to the Islamic Republic of Iran, then you should. [If the video link doesn’t work, take advantage of the luxury of having access to YouTube and find it on there]. Obama quotes a famous Persian poet, praises Iranian culture and people, and also throws in a little Farsi at the end for good measure. It is noteworthy that he referred to the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” rather than the “regime” or the “Axis of Evil.”

As a side note, don’t expect the Iranian leadership to embrace the message with open arms. Especially publicly, Iranian leaders should be expected to keep up with their anti-U.S. rhetoric. Not only do they remain skeptical of the Obama administration, but this sort of gesture by Obama doesn’t fit so well into the Iranian framework of the U.S. and its president. Obama’s unanticipated message was a powerful gesture that may throw the Iranian hardliners off-balance a bit. President Bush made it easy for Iranian hardliners to rally people around a common enemy. However, Obama is trying out a new approach and seeing where it will take him. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has already issued a strong response to Obama’s attempted outreach.

In addition to being an Iranian celebration, Nowruz is also a Kurdish celebration. Kurds make up about 10% of the Syrian population, with about 2 million people. This makes them the largest ethnic minority group in Syria. Nowruz is not an official state holiday in Syria, but both Mother’s Day and Nowruz always fall on March 21. However, for a variety of reasons, Mother’s Day takes precedence in recognition as the official holiday. There is much to say, and indeed much more to learn, about the Kurds in Syria, but I will stick to a generalized and largely insignificant observation: most that I have come across in Damascus are of either Syrian or Iraqi origin; they drink a lot of Araq, and they love the U.S. government. In fact, they are the only people in Syria that I have heard good things about President Bush from. On numerous occasions, I have been thanked by Iraqi Kurds living in Damascus for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I am never sure how to respond to this. I find it difficult to say “you are welcome.”

In any case, Happy Syrian Mother’s Day, and as said best by President Obama, “Eideh Shoma Mobarak” (Happy New Year)!!!

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been a busy and popular guy over the past month. He has been receiving a significant amount of international and regional attention, as well as a flurry of high-level visitors from the U.S. Last week he met with two American delegations. One delegation was led by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and another was led by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). There is talk that a U.S. ambassador may soon follow them.

Yesterday, the top Middle East official at the U.S. State Department met with the Syrian ambassador in the United States, Imad Moustapha. Moustapha met for two hours with Jeffrey Feltman, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. It was the highest level of dialogue between the U.S. and Syria since Obama took office.

High Hopes and High Expectations
Syria’s stock in regional and international affairs is clearly rising with the new attention coming from the Obama administration. The government in Damascus is currently exploring where it could take them. The U.S. is also exploring how serious Syria is about improving relations and about changing some of its behaviors.

Two critical questions remain: what does the U.S. want from Syria and what is Syria willing and able to give to the U.S.? There may be some things that the U.S. wants (and expects) from Syria that the Assad government is either unwilling or unable to provide the U.S. with. But this is all part of the Syrian government’s calculations, motives, and interests. It is clear though that both sides are getting their feet wet and testing what the other is willing to give. There are high hopes and high expectations, but one must not be too naive. After all, this is the Middle East we’re talking about.

Those that are expecting a quick and major transformation in relations between the U.S. and Syria may have set their expectations too high. For a major shift in relations to occur, there has to be a shift in the power structure of the region. Events like this rarely happen overnight, nor do they happen simply because the U.S. wants them to. In recent history, wishing and pressuring for a desired outcome in the region has largely been counterproductive.

It is still unclear where any of this will go, but the new atmospherics between the U.S. and Syria are promising. At least to me, it seems obvious that shouting at (or about) one another from across the Atlantic will not solve anything. Talking is important, but Washington and Damascus are both being cautious about taking the first big, substantive step.

Richard Haass argues in a new piece out for Newsweek: “It may be difficult to make peace with Syria, but it will be all but impossible to make peace in the region without it. President Obama correctly views dialogue as a tool, not a reward. It is time to put the tool to use, and to see what can be built.”

Assad and Kerry
On February 17, President Assad gave an exclusive interview (two separate links) to The Guardian (U.K.), where he expressed a willingness to commit to improve relations with the U.S. It was no coincidence that Sen. John Kerry was planning to be in Damascus for talks with Assad a few days later.

Three days before arriving in Damascus, Kerry said something important when he was in Beirut. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” he said. “So we are going to renew diplomacy without any illusion, without any naivety, without any misplaced belief that, just by talking, things will automatically happen….They will happen when things are met on both sides and you have to talk to people in order to understand those expectations and reach agreements.”

After his meeting with Assad last Saturday, Kerry appeared to be very hopeful about where relations could go with Syria. “What I heard, and what I will take back with me, is the possibility of re-cooperation on a number of different issues, beginning immediately, beginning very soon,” Kerry said. “I will go back to Washington more hopeful and absolutely more convinced of the possibility of changing the equation.”

“I believe deeply that this is an important moment of change, a moment of potential transformation,” Kerry said. “I think if there is a will, we can end years of prejudice and disappointment and begin to make real progress.”

“The discussions were very long, frank, candid, and open,” Kerry added. This seems to be a common response made by American officials after they meet with Assad. He is a very pragmatic, thoughtful, and well-spoken individual. He also speaks English fluently and eloquently. However, it is important that the Obama administration understand the environment that Assad is operating in. There are some key political constraints and considerations that he must tend to and he cannot simply do as he pleases, or as the U.S. wishes for that matter.

Other Regional Factors
It is important to recognize that the U.S. and Syria are not operating in a vacuum. For example, the U.S. can only go so far and give so much without the participation of the Israelis. The major prize in Syrian politics is the return of the Golan Heights. Israel captured the region from Syria in June 1967, successfully defended it in October 1973, and officially annexed it in December 1981. If relations between Syria and Israel are ever normalized, the settlement will include the return of the Golan Heights. The region holds significant strategic importance.

Iran is also a key consideration for the U.S. By engaging with Syria, the U.S. is hoping to peel Syria away from Iranian influence. I would argue that the relationship between Syria and Iran is largely one of convenience and shared interests, rather than one of ideology, religion, or of a shared overall vision of the region. There currently appears to be some uneasiness in the relationship. Tehran is skeptical of warming relations between the U.S. and Syria. It is also unclear how much of a wedge the U.S. can actually place between Damascus and Tehran. While completely separating the two is an unrealistic goal, one realistic goal may be to try to decrease the incentives for Syria to participate in some of its joint activities with Iran.

Saudi Arabia also sees some of the opportunities opening up with Syria. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said in Paris on Thursday that he wants to start building “healthy” new ties with Syria. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem made a landmark visit to Riyadh earlier this week. He delivered a letter from President Assad to King Abdullah, in what the Saudi Gazette reported was a response to a Saudi offer of improved relations. “We hope for a reconciliation between Syria and Saudi Arabia on healthy foundations,” Prince Saud told reporters on Thursday. “Divergences on Arab issues are behind us, buried.”

Relations between Riyadh and Damascus have been quite tenuous over recent years, especially since the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in Beirut on February 14, 2005. The new prospects for a possible rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia can be seen in the context of Riyadh’s desire to push along the Middle East peace process, but also in the context of Saudi desires to contain and isolate Iran.

Two serious confounding variables in the opportunity to improve relations between the U.S. and Syria are: the new leadership in Israel and the Hariri Tribunal. The results of the Israeli election are still being sorted out, but the final results and how the new government handles itself are very important for how the U.S.-Syrian relationship will play out over the next several months. How Washington reacts to the Hariri Tribunal will also be important.

Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to take over as Israeli Prime Minister in the next few weeks, after putting together a coalition government. He is on the recent record as saying that his country will never give up the Golan Heights to Syria. These hawkish comments could be seen as campaign rhetoric during the Gaza conflict, or it could also be indicative of how he will handle himself as prime minister. His government will likely be made up of largely right-wing elements. It is unclear where he wants to take his government or how strong the opposition will be in trying to counter such policies.

Netanyahu was previously prime minister from 1996 to 1999. He held secret negotiations with President Hafez al-Assad in 1998. Despite his hard-line rhetoric during the campaign (and as early as two weeks ago), some have suggested that Netanyahu may use the Syrian track of negotiations to avoid having to work too hard on the Palestinian track. This is to say that if he achieves some sort of breakthrough with Syria, he may expect the U.S. to give him a break with the Palestinians. Despite this too being difficult, the Syrian track seems to be the most promising. The issues are less complex and less filled with emotions than the Palestinian track.

While visiting the Golan the day before the Israeli elections on February 10, Netanyahu declared that “the Golan will remain in our hands.” According to Netanyahu: “For 35 years this has been the quietest border we have because we are on the Golan, not below it.”

Israel’s incursion into Gaza in January ended Turkish-mediated talks between Syria and Israel. However, in his recent interview with The Guardian, Assad said that he is confident that they will restart. “It will make it harder, but in the end we will return to talks.”

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (known informally as the Hariri Tribunal) is set to begin tomorrow in The Hague. The tribunal is due to try the suspected assassins of Rafiq Hariri. Damascus has repeatedly denied involvement in the assassination, but some have predicted that a few high-level Syrian officials may be implicated. The bottom line is that the outcome of this tribunal and how the U.S. reacts to the tribunal will play a major role in U.S.-Syrian relations in the near future. Syria may expect the U.S. to relax its pressure on the outcome of the tribunal if Washington hopes to improve relations. The Bush administration largely used the tribunal as a pin to jab the government in Damascus and to try to push for its continued isolation.

Syria’s Leverage
In his interview with The Guardian, Assad tried to stress that the U.S. cannot afford to ignore Syria. “If you want comprehensive peace in the Middle East you can’t achieve it without Syria,” he said. “We are a player in the region. If you want to talk about peace you cannot advance without us.”

Assad wants the U.S. to recognize that Syria plays a pivotal role in the region. While at times it may be easy to disregard the Syrians, Assad will try to position himself as someone the U.S. needs to come to if it wants to achieve some of its policy objectives in the region. The Bush administration, on the other hand, simply went around the Syrians, while simultaneously trying to push them further out of the way.

Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst close to the leadership in Damascus, recently wrote: “Syrians want to be seen as problem-solvers rather than problem-seekers. They want to show the world—mainly the U.S.—that just as they can deliver on Palestine, they can deliver in Iraq and Lebanon. Syria has said these words in every possible language, and it will continue to show the West that it can deliver in the Middle East. For years the Syrians have been saying that reforms cannot be made unless there are no regional and international threats threatening Damascus.”

Additionally, if relations end up taking a turn for the worse and if Syria perceives that the Obama administration is not giving it a fair chance, Damascus will demonstrate that it can make life much more difficult for the Americans in the Middle East. Syria’s proxies throughout the region may not have as much leverage as Iranian proxies, but they can still make it more difficult for the Obama administration to carry out some of its policy objectives in the region.

Sending an Ambassador to Damascus
The Obama administration is currently trying to decide if, and when, to send an ambassador back to Damascus. Sen. Kerry has been a strong advocate of returning an American ambassador.

In his interview with The Guardian, President Assad commented on the issue of an ambassador, as well as on the delegations that he has been receiving in Damascus over the past month. “An ambassador is important,” Assad said. “Sending these delegations is important. This number of congressmen coming to Syria is a good gesture. It shows that this administration wants to see dialogue with Syria. What we have heard from them—Obama, Clinton, and others—is positive.”

However, Assad also added: “We are still in the period of gestures and signals. There is nothing real yet.”

On February 7, UAE-based newspaper Gulf News reported that Frederic Hof had been appointed as the U.S. ambassador to Syria. In a statement released to Gulf News four days later, Hof denied that he had been appointed to the job.

Hof currently serves on the National Advisory Committee of the Middle East Policy Council and he has a long history with the region. In his statement, he said: “To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of my impending appointment are greatly exaggerated. Indeed, they are false. I have maintained a lifelong habit of not accepting jobs I’ve not been offered, and this one will be no exception….When I was an American Field Service exchange student in Damascus in 1964 I promised my Syrian friends I’d someday return as Ambassador. Some of them will be disappointed to learn that your report has no basis in fact. Others will be relieved.”

This information was either floated or simply inaccurate reporting, but Hof provided some colorful language worth reporting on. There has been no official word from Washington about such an appointment. Regardless, I remain hopeful that I will have a new American friend in Damascus by the time I head back to Washington in mid-June.

A few readers (and potential Arabic students at Damascus University) have inquired about how the University is for learning Arabic and how they might go about studying there. Others have asked about how my studies are going in general. I was going to respond earlier, but decided it was a good idea to wait a couple weeks to get a better feel for how things actually are.

For those wishing to learn Arabic, the big question is always where the best place is to study the language in the region. It is a very difficult question and no one seems to have the answer. The majority of people typically end up in Cairo at one point or another. While there is some potential in Cairo, for me at least, it wasn’t the best atmosphere for learning Arabic. There were too many distractions and it was easy to fall back on using English with so many foreigners around. I’m sure this was all part of the study abroad experience, but looking back, I think I had a little too much fun in Egypt. In my opinion, there are better alternatives for learning the language, unless you take intensive courses, stay focused, and isolate yourself from the other Americans in a place like Cairo.

This time around, I was looking for somewhere unique, with few foreigners, a structured and respected Arabic program, and in a politically significant and interesting country. After being in Damascus for one month and after two weeks of taking classes at Damascus University, I am certain that I made the right decision by coming to Syria. For studying Arabic, I can’t imagine there being a better place in the region. Despite my limited personal experiences, I would say that it competes with Yemen for the top spot.

To study at the University, you have to register in person. Email addresses throughout the region are often quite dodgy and they are typically giant black holes. To register, there are a few required documents which take a few days to get completed. Like everything in Damascus, this promises to be an adventure. Two of the most important required documents are a letter from your Embassy in Damascus saying that you are allowed to study at the University…and an AIDS test. Needless to say, the AIDS test was an interesting experience. No one seems to know what happens to you if you do test positive for AIDS, but I’m guessing that you won’t be in Damascus for much longer. The AIDS testing center wasn’t the cleanest facility, but I tried to ignore that fact. In a room smaller than a typical (American) bedroom, there were about 20 people sitting and standing around. As I sat in the giant red chair (perhaps to conceal the blood stains), everyone in the room watched as I had a blood sample taken. Apparently I looked nervous because the nurse who did the test said in English: “Are you scared?” The approximately ten nurses on duty in the room at the time all laughed in unison. I don’t particular do so well with getting blood tests in the U.S., so it was much worse in Damascus. However, I passed the test with flying colors and it wasn’t so painful after all.

Before starting classes, an Arabic placement exam is required. There are six levels of Arabic courses, with two advanced levels beyond the first six. There appears to be a fairly sizable jump between level six and the advanced program. I tested into level three, which I was pleased with. Luckily, it seems to be the best level for where I’m currently at. This is another major issue with studying Arabic. If you are placed higher than you should be, then you have absolutely no clue what is going on (especially if all instruction is in Arabic). And if you are placed too low, then the class is easy and you don’t learn anything. In level three, I am aware of what is going on, yet it is also difficult enough that it is pushing me to work really hard at it.

All instruction in the classroom is in Arabic. When the professor notices side conversations going on, he will give a lecture about why it is necessary to only use Arabic in class. Sometimes it is difficult to learn new words when he defines them in Arabic, but this also helps with trying to think in Arabic so you don’t always have to translate as you listen, speak, etc. Each level lasts for one month, with a midterm and a final exam worth most of the total grade. I just had my midterm exam on Thursday. It was difficult, but I was happy with the results. Most important of all though, I have learned a lot in only two weeks at the University.

As I mentioned in my first Report, classes are Sunday through Thursday, from 9 AM to 1 PM. Most classes have between eight and 12 students, which creates for a good atmosphere. In my class there are ten students: three Americans (including me); two from Italy; two from the UK; and one from Switzerland, Poland, and Germany. No other class has this many Americans in it. The other two Americans in the class sit next to one another, but I typically try to avoid both of them. I’m not exactly sure why, but I do. It is easy to fall into the comfort zone of being surrounded by other Americans and I am trying to prevent that from happening.

Every hour there is a five or ten minute break, with the hallways filling up with foreigners and Syrians. The hallway tends to get really smoky, with a clear majority of the students smoking cigarettes. It took some getting used to, but I have officially hit the point where I feel uncomfortable if I am ever in a place where you aren’t allowed to smoke. Not necessarily because of my own bad habits, but simply because of the general atmosphere. There are very few places in Damascus where smoking is forbidden. The classroom is one of them, but of course, you can smoke in the doorway. There is a large sign in one part of the hallway which says “Smoking is Forbidden.” However, this only means that there are no ashtrays in this area. You have to walk about 50 feet to find another, which is pretty far by Syrian standards. Smoking in the Middle East is an interesting cultural phenomenon to examine, but I will save that for another time. I will say though that non-smokers can quickly turn into smokers after living in the region for a short period of time.

Arabic at the University is fairly intense. I would compare one level to one full semester of studying in the U.S. At first it is slightly overwhelming, but you soon get into the routine. I also have a private tutor for learning Syrian Colloquial Arabic. Most students end up deciding that it is too much with classes and the amount of work outside of class, but I have decided to take three lessons a week. Each lesson is for two hours. Learning Standard Arabic is necessary for passing my proficiency test at GW, for reading and watching the news, and for reading the Qur’an. But you eventually hit a point where you think you have learned a lot of Arabic and then you quickly realize that you can’t hold a basic conversation with people on the street. One of the major reasons why I am learning the language is so that I can communicate with people in Arabic. However, it’s important to try to find a way to balance these differences. It occasionally feels like I am studying two different languages, especially when I learn new words in the Syrian dialect and then learn the same words at the University in Standard Arabic. But to get where I want to be after five months, I’m forcing myself to stay disciplined and remain busy with Arabic. This doesn’t mean that I am always sitting in my room studying though. I didn’t have to come to Damascus to do that. It is also important to practice with Syrian friends and random people on the streets. Furthermore, it’s quite satisfying learning new words and being able to use them in expressing yourself in the real world.

The University itself is a nice place. I believe there are around 90,000 total students. I don’t know how many foreign students are at the Language Institute, but I would guess somewhere around 100 or 120. The campus is enormous and I’m still not sure where it actually begins and ends. Around the area of the Language Institute building, you will find foreign students, as well as Syrians learning English and other languages. Elsewhere on campus, you won’t see a foreign student. When entering campus, you have to enter something that resembles a gate. There is always a guy with a machine gun checking ID’s. Foreign students aren’t given one, so they can pass without showing a card. As I approach, the guy on duty will occasionally nod his head and say “ejnabi” (foreigner). This means that you can pass through. In the U.S., calling someone a foreigner is slightly derogatory, but here it’s normal. I constantly hear the word being mentioned around the city, but it’s never intended to be hostile.

The students on campus are all very friendly. In two weeks, I have made more Syrian friends from the University than my entire five months studying at the American University in Cairo (AUC) three years ago. Around 90 percent of AUC is comprised of Egyptian students, but it is difficult to break into their circles. The students at AUC come from the wealthiest families in Egypt, mostly because they are the only ones that can actually afford studying there. For the most part, they already have their cliques because they went to the same private schools for elementary and secondary school.

Damascus University is free for Syrians. In many ways, despite AUC being recognized as one of the two “Harvard’s of the Middle East,” I tend to believe that more work gets done and more gets learned at Damascus University than at AUC. The students seem to be focused and proud of the subject that they are studying. There are also few foreigners, so they are always intrigued by them. A few times each week a Syrian student will approach me asking if I want to do a language exchange, where they will help me with Arabic and I will help them with English. On one occasion, the approaching student passed up on the British guy I was standing with. He explained that he wants to learn the “American accent.” After the first week, I agreed to do three different exchanges. But I eventually had to start saying no. I have done one such “exchange,” but we didn’t create a formal program for studying. Yesterday my Syrian “language exchange partner” picked me up in his car and we drove around Damascus for a couple hours. We helped each other in conversation, but more than anything, it seems to be a great way to create a new friendship. We have become really good friends over the past two weeks. He speaks English fairly well, but we try to communicate in a mixture of both Arabic and English.

At the University, it is difficult trying to figure out what social or financial class the students are in, but presumably they are from the middle- and upper-classes. Regardless, I have noticed that most of the students are very fashion-conscious. They aren’t as decked out as the Egyptians at AUC, but the students do have a sense of style and seem to focus a lot on it. The majority of students dress in the “Western-style.” Less than half of the females wear a head-scarf. Not many cover their face, but some do. On campus, guys and girls mingle freely.

During the past three weeks, life with the Syrian family has been an interesting experience. However, tomorrow I will be signing a “contract” for an apartment of my own outside of the Old City. My one-month “contract” with the family expires on March 3, but I will be moving next Sunday, March 1. (I will save the details on this apartment for a future report). The mother, who doesn’t work, but is definitely in charge of the house, has tried convincing me to stay for another month every day for the past week. She has even offered me a discount since I didn’t eat much of her cooked food, which I paid a lot for. She won’t be happy that I am choosing to move, but it’s what’s best for me, and this is what’s most important. I’m not looking forward to our conversation about it, but I suppose I should bring it up very soon.

The family is very nice and looks out for my well-being, but there a few reasons why I am deciding to move. First, I need some privacy. Despite the style of the house being very spread out, I have absolutely no privacy. When I come home (regardless of the hour), the mother jumps out from wherever she is and asks various questions. And if she misses me and sees the light on in my room, it doesn’t take her long to knock on my door, ask for permission to enter, and then sit on my bed to talk briefly. I know it’s mostly in the interest of looking out for me and being hospitable, but it is a little over-bearing. The constant barrage of questions is especially annoying. “Where were you?” … “Where are you going?” … “Why didn’t you eat breakfast/dinner today?” etc.

I tried to meet her living style in the middle, but it has been difficult. The family, but mostly the mother, doesn’t fully understand why I don’t come home immediately after class and stay at home all night, like all of the other children in the house. (Three of them are studying at Damascus University). She also has trouble understanding that I usually don’t eat breakfast (and that I especially don’t want a feast delivered to my room three hours before class starts—6 AM); why I would ever pay for food elsewhere (even though her food is terrible); and why I would ever study at a coffee shop rather than study in my bedroom (even though she seems to bang on my door every hour that I am there). The family loves foreigners, Western movies, and President Obama. They would also do anything for me, but it’s not exactly what I’m looking for, especially for the next four months.

In addition to the bad food and the pesky mother, there are some other minor difficulties. Damascus is still relatively cold, especially at night. Houses and apartments are typically poorly-heated and this one is no different. There is an old and nearly broken space heater in my room. It gets extremely hot, yet most of the heat doesn’t get much further than an inch or two. I’m also never so sure about the various random wires hanging out of it. However, I usually carry most of my valuables with me in case it does decide to catch fire. I’ve also been shocked by the outlet several times, which is never pleasant. Since there is only one outlet in my room, I have to share time between the heater and other amenities such as a cell phone charger. Some nights I have to let my cell phone die in the interest of staying warm. The shower situation never got any better either. With ten people in the house, there is only one bathroom. Taking a shower is generally more trouble than it’s even worth. I don’t think that my expectations are too high for my living situation in Damascus, but a hot shower would be nice every once in a while. I usually take one every three or four days, which isn’t so bad. This is well above the average of the others in the family.

Living alone can potentially be a lonely affair, but it doesn’t seem to be the case in Damascus. There is always somewhere to go and there are always people to talk to. In fact, several Syrian guys (my age and 65+) call my cell phone on a daily basis. If you have a friendly conversation with a Syrian, it doesn’t take much longer than a minute or two until they want to exchange phone numbers. In the U.S., you can promise to meet up in a few days and all is well if you don’t follow through. But here, the men hold this as an “appointment.” And they actually do use this word. Some I do want to meet up with again and others I may not. More than anything though, so many are fascinated by the fact that they have the opportunity to make friends with a foreigner, and especially with an American. Most are quick to say that it is to practice their English, as well as to help me with whatever I need help with (Arabic, finding an apartment, etc). In Damascus, the hospitality and willingness to help an American has amazed me. It’s refreshing to know that most are being genuine and aren’t expecting to get something (i.e. money) out of it for themselves.

As I mentioned, the weather in Damascus has been a little cold. A few days after arriving, I had to buy a winter jacket. This past week was actually much colder than my first three weeks here. I often ask Syrians when the weather will improve. They typically have two responses: “bukra, inshallah” (tomorrow, God willing) or “ba’ad asbu’a, inshallah” (after a week, God willing). I have been hearing this for a month now. During the afternoon it has been between 45 and 55 degrees. At night, it usually drops to between 30 and 35 degrees. When the sun comes out, it is very pleasant. But most days and nights have been windy and there hasn’t been much sun. “Shabaat maa ‘ala kalaamoo rabaat” (February’s word is not kept). This is to say that the weather is often changing and never predictable in February. This Syrian proverb has proven to be true. It has also rained two days this past week. There were rumors this weekend that it may snow, but luckily it never happened.

I am greatly anticipating the politically-oriented report next week. It was hard for me not to pursue it this week, but I think it’ll be more beneficial to have some sort of structure in these reports.

Until next weekend, Ma’salaama!

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is planning to visit Damascus sometime next week, where he will holds talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry also made a trip to Syria in December 2006 with Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to hold talks with Assad, despite the trip being opposed by the Bush administration. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also held talks with Assad in 2007, in a trip which received a lot of attention. The Bush administration strongly denounced her visit. At the time, Vice President Dick Cheney explained how unhelpful and unncessary the trip was, saying that “we don’t need 535 Secretaries of State,” making a reference to the number of lawmakers in Congress. President Bush said that her trip undermined U.S. efforts to isolate the Syrian government. “A lot of people have gone to see President Assad…and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” Bush said at the time. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”

This time around, the atmospherics between the U.S. and Syria and the attitude in Washington are much different. Kerry has the implicit approval of the President and he isn’t seen as a rogue lawmaker working outside the framework of U.S. policy. Damascus also appears to be receptive to the new posture in Washington. The Syrian government is intrigued by what this new posture could offer them.

Senator Kerry met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday morning to discuss his upcoming trip to the region. Unlike his trip in 2006, this time he received a green light from the Secretary of State, despite Kerry’s spokesman making it clear that he isn’t representing President Obama in his talks with Assad. Kerry also plans to make stops in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Egypt and Jordan are the only two states in the region which have normalized relations with Israel. It is interesting (and important) that Syria makes Kerry’s list of destinations. Since the time I arrived in Syria three weeks ago, there have been a number of small signals sent from Washington which have indicated that it might be prepared to begin to thaw relations with Damascus. These signals have largely been reciprocated. The Obama administration isn’t wasting much time warming up to Assad, with all of this coming in Obama’s first month in office.

Many Syrians took notice to the fact that seven U.S. members of Congress traveled to Damascus two weeks ago to hold talks with Assad. In general, Syrians are proud that the U.S. would send a delegation to Damascus, in the interest of dialogue and not conflict. They see a real opportunity in this. The trip two weeks ago was the top news story on the website of the Arabic version of the official Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) for a day or two. The meeting clearly wasn’t something that the Syrian government was trying to hide from the domestic population. This wasn’t a low-key and insignificant meeting in the eyes of Syrian officials and citizens alike. The same applies to Kerry’s visit, which is even more important than the visit by seven members of the House of Representatives. Kerry is currently the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his words hold sway with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Clinton.

“I will be having some frank discussions about where our relations are and where they ought to be,” Kerry said on Friday. He also said that he will press the Obama administration to send a U.S. ambassador to Damascus. The U.S. has not had an ambassador in Syria since 2005, after Ambassador Margaret Scobey was sent back to Washington after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. (Today is actually the four-year anniversary of Hariri’s death). Kerry said that sending a U.S. ambassador to Damascus shouldn’t be seen as a “punishment or a reward.”

“It helps you communicate so that you are not guessing,” Kerry said. “It seems to me that it is very self-defeating not to do it.”

If Washington and Damascus are serious about trying to improve relations, then meetings such as these are small, yet significant steps in this process. Also noticed throughout the region was that President Obama gave his first sit-down interview as president with Al-Arabiya, a Saudi television news channel based in Dubai. This was Obama’s way of reaching out to the Arab world and it was a positive gesture. However, these small gestures will have to be followed up with real action at some point.

Obama continues to promise to give a speech in a Muslim capital sometime during his first 100 days in office. This means, in theory, that he will do so by April 29. Obviously Damascus is not a realistic option at the moment, but there is a lot of speculation as to where the speech might be, both in the U.S. and around the Muslim world. The general consensus in the U.S. seems to be Cairo. However, a sitting U.S. president hasn’t visited Cairo since President Nixon did so in 1974, despite three decades of solid relations between the U.S. and Egypt. (Sharm el-Sheikh doesn’t count as Cairo). Nixon actually made the first visit to Cairo by a U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt’s trip there in 1943. President Mubarak also has a say in this and he may not see such a spectacle in his political interests at the moment. But this all depends on how Mubarak plans to fix his severely damaged image in the region after the recent conflict in Gaza. (To enter a shop the other day, I was forced to step on a poster of Mubarak and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.)

I have also heard Jakarta, Indonesia mentioned several times as a possible speech location. Despite promising to give a speech in a “Muslim” capital, it would be smart to stick to the “Arab” world. While Obama has been trying to address the entire Muslim world in his recent rhetoric, I would argue that the “Arab” world is much more significant, strategically and politically. There is plenty of time to visit his old elementary school in Jakarta. (I am aware that there are some flaws in this argument. See: Turkey and Iran). The speech is a great opportunity for Obama to speak straight to the Muslim/Arab world and make it clear that he is serious about changing U.S. policies in the Middle East. I am certain that the majority of televisions in Damascus will be tuned in, wherever the location of the speech. Syrians and others in the region will be watching, waiting, and listening very carefully over the next few months to every word and move coming out of Washington.

In recent weeks, a handful of American academics and former U.S. officials have made trips to Damascus. This has largely been an attempt to gauge the willingness of the Syrian government to engage with the U.S., as well as with Israel. These individuals have also tried to lay the groundwork before any public, high-level meetings take place. It remains unclear how soon Secretary Clinton or President Obama might make an appearance in Damascus or when their paths may cross with Assad in another location. Simply talking won’t solve many problems, but it is a big and necessary first step. It seems clear at this point that the policy of isolation and sanctions which has prevailed in recent years has not led to any significant changes in behavior from Damascus, which is what Washington is looking for.

A few days before the Inauguration of Obama, Helena Cobban wrote an interesting piece on the future prospects for the U.S.-Syrian relationship. In January, she traveled to Damascus as part of a small delegation of non-governmental Americans whose goal is to try to explore possible opportunities for improving U.S.-Syrian relations. She wrote: “Syrians close to and outside the government expressed some confidence that their country might soon be able to realize two long-held national goals: The resumption of a serious, comprehensive peace process in which all the remaining tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict—including their own—could finally be resolved, and their escape from the encirclement and multi-faceted pressure that Washington has subjected them to for many years.”

It seems that many Syrians feel that their country is presented with a great opportunity to potentially increase its relevance over the next few years, both regionally and internationally. If they can increase their standing on these two levels, this could also mean that their domestic standing could improve dramatically. A unique feeling appears to be in the air in Damascus, especially with the recent change of leadership in the U.S. It never ceases to amaze me how important the U.S. is in how the rest of the world operates and how people feel about their position within it.

I remain surprised by how many positive comments I continue to hear in Damascus about President Obama—from Muslim and Christian; rich and poor; male and female; and young and old. Surprisingly, I have met a number of people on the streets and in shops who have appeared to be more enthusiastic about Obama’s Middle East policy than myself. They seem to feel directly affected by an Obama presidency, especially after eight years of disillusionment with American policies in the region. However, what Obama doesn’t have going for him are extremely high expectations. While these expectations have presented many people with hope, it is also a key vulnerability, in the Middle East, as well as in the U.S. High expectations mean that when unrealistic goals are not met, people become disappointed. Many Syrians are not aware of the realities of some of Obama’s key domestic constraints and limitations. It is a reality that there are some political interests in Washington which Obama will have a tough time coming up against. But the first time that citizens (and governments) in the Middle East feel that Obama sells out to Israel at their own expense, there will be no turning back. This is why the next few months are very important for the Obama administration, especially with regard to Syria. Obama also has many other pressing issues currently on his plate which could push some aspects of his Middle East policy to the backburner.

In her analysis from mid-January, Cobban described influential Syrians as feeling “cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for U.S.-Syrian relations under an Obama administration. This is the same feeling that I have noticed from ordinary Syrians on the streets. While my “research” isn’t scientific, I have been trying to talk to as many different people as possible and trying to get the best feel that I can for how this place operates. Some of my previous expectations and thoughts about Syria have already proven to be inaccurate. As time goes on, I will learn even more and other expectations may too be thrown aside.

Many Syrians ask me about Obama’s intentions or potential to change policies toward Syria and the rest of the region. I tend to take an indifferent or moderate view toward Obama when discussing politics with Syrians. If people express any skepticism toward him, I usually say “Obama ahsan min Bush” (Obama is better than Bush). They typically laugh and agree. Many Syrians seem to be looking for my insight or assume that I have special access to Obama, especially since I live in Washington. If they want some insider secrets, I usually tell them that Obama also smokes cigarettes. (The majority of Syrian men smoke many cigarettes each day). They are always fascinated by this. Of course, I have other more serious discussions about Obama and his Middle East policies. Despite remaining relatively indifferent toward him, I do my best to express some optimism, especially regarding his policies toward Syria. I hope he doesn’t prove me wrong in the coming months.

As I have mentioned before, and as probably can be assumed, there are very few Americans in Damascus. For this reason, the Americans that Syrians do speak with have a large role to fill. While most people around the region are good at separating the U.S. government from the people, it remains important to show a positive face for the country. Many Europeans I have spoken with have suggested that I say that I’m British or Canadian, but I find no point in this. I may not be proud of everything my country has done in the region in the past, but this is where I am from and I am proud of it. There is no reason to run away from this, simply because of politics. Even though I’m only one person, I feel that I have some sort of role to play here. Luckily though, others before me seem to have done a good job at representing American people, because most Syrians tend to be excited to meet another American, despite it not happening too often. I have yet to have any hostility directed toward me as a result of being an American.

My current host family brought up Obama at dinner a few nights ago. They all had very positive things to say about him. However, the mother said that she likes him, but doesn’t really trust him because he has a Jewish mother. This was the first time I heard this particular conspiracy theory. It’s been interesting trying to convince some Syrians that Obama is a Christian (even though it shouldn’t matter), and now, that his mother wasn’t Jewish (even though this too shouldn’t matter).

As I was walking back to my house yesterday afternoon, I inadvertently became part of a very unique and interesting event. As I approached the Sayyida Ruqayya Mosque, the small alley I was walking in began to echo with chants and the sound of loud drums. As I got closer to the mosque, it took a while to get through the crowd of onlookers. After walking another 20 feet or so, I realized I was standing in the middle of a large crowd of shirtless men chanting and pounding their chests with an open hand as hard as they possibly could. Some chests were bright red, others were clearly bruised, and others were bleeding. A number of the men had scars on their backs and chests from past events. What I thought was the sound of drums wasn’t drums at all. It was the sound of the men passionately pounding their chests to the beat of the chanting. They were clearly filled with strong emotions. I noticed that some onlookers had their cell phones out, taking pictures and video of the scene. I found this to be a good opportunity to pull out my camera and take some photos as well. Despite being the only Westerner in the area, no one seemed to care.

A Syrian guy standing next to me began talking with me and inquired about who I was and where I was from. At first he wondered why I was there, but it didn’t take him long to give me his phone number and invite me to his house for tea. I declined, but he told me a little about what was going on. He was Sunni Muslim and wasn’t able to explain much about it, but he said that it was an observance of Ashoura, marking the martyrdom of Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad.

I soon put it together that the event was actually worshippers celebrating a day of observance for Arba’een, marking 40 days since the Day of Ashoura. These are both Shi’a celebrations. However, it is not a happy festival, but rather, it is an emotionally intense and grieving event. It is performed in memory of Hussein’s martyrdom at the Battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. Participants gather together in public for the ceremonial chest-beating as a display of their devotion to Hussein and in remembrance of his suffering. Some events are bloodier than others. Arba’een is actually on Tuesday, but many observed it on Friday, the Muslim day of worship. It will be interesting to see if a similar event is taking place on my way back from class Tuesday afternoon.

The Sayyida Ruqayya Mosque is a Shi’a mosque, recently built up by the Iranians to quickly become one of the most beautiful mosques in Syria. The mosque actually holds the grave of Fatima (also known as “Ruqayya”), the youngest daughter of Hussein. There is only a small Shi’a community in Syria, but Iranians are known to often make the journey to Damascus to worship at the mosque.

Friday was also a big day to celebrate Valentine’s Day in Damascus. In the U.S., Valentine’s Day could sometimes pass without even noticing. However, in Damascus, it is a very big day. Actually, Syrians have been celebrating the special day for the past week. I have been intrigued by how many shops have been selling various gifts for Valentine’s Day. Walking through a street of shops, it doesn’t take long until you see yet another shop full of small and large gifts, with the stores full of bright red hearts and other decorations. There are several stores that have nothing but gifts for Valentine’s Day, which I was a little surprised by. Most restaurants have also picked up on the Valentine’s Day theme. I’m not sure what some of the shops will look like next week, because since I have been here, they have only sold gifts for the holiday. The celebration is quite the novelty in Damascus. It seems to be a greatly anticipated social (and commercial) event. I can’t even count the number of males and females I have seen walking around with roses over the past few days. As I sit here in a popular wireless cafe, I see several large, red balloons dangling from the ceiling which read: “I Love You.” A lot can be drawn from this about how love, affection, and relationships work in Syria. Many young Syrians find this to be a great opportunity to express their affection for the opposite sex in a more or less socially accepted norm based around the holiday itself.

My Valentine’s Day appears to have been much less eventful than other Syrians my age. I spent my day studying Arabic and writing this Report. Regardless, Happy Valentine’s Day from Damascus!

The family is fairly strict religiously speaking, but it should be an interesting experience. When I put my bags in my bedroom, I was lectured by the mother for not taking my shoes off when my feet touched the carpet. Somehow I forgot this rule when I walked into their living room five minutes later. The 21-year old son reassured me that the family won’t pray on my bedroom floor, but that carpet is important for praying in Islam, even around the house. He told me this as we stood in my bedroom after having coffee and tea in the living room. (And no, he didn’t take his shoes off as he stood on the carpet). I’m looking forward to learning some of their customs and beliefs.

The family is comprised of a mother, a father, and five children (from ages 6 to 21). One very positive aspect about the family is that the kids don’t seem to be as loud and annoying as most kids on the streets of Damascus. If kids on the streets aren’t chasing each other in traffic making loud and obnoxious noises, then they’re shooting each other with pellet guns. Overall, the house seemed to be the most unique experience that I had available. It will also be a great opportunity to learn Arabic. There is one daughter who speaks some English in case I need some help, but for the most part, all conversations will have to be in Arabic. It’s very easy to fall back on using English and it takes quite a bit of discipline to stick with Arabic. But in this situation, it might be good that I’m forced to speak the language.

Unfortunately though, the house doesn’t have cable television. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it means that I won’t be able to fall asleep listening to Al-Jazeera every night, as I had initially planned. Nor does the house have internet access. However, this isn’t a unique phenomenon in Syria. The status and impact of the internet in Syria is something also worth discussing. Internet in homes and apartments is generally rare, for both economic and infrastructural reasons. From what I’ve seen and heard so far, dial-up internet can be found in some houses and apartments. However, the connection is often quite slow and many decide that it isn’t even worth setting up. Over the past few years, there has been a significant rise in internet cafes throughout Damascus. Walking around late at night in the Old City, one can see a number of bright, neon signs pointing toward the direction of the “INTERNET.” Prices vary, but it seems that most cost around $1 per hour to use computers at the internet cafes. There are also a handful of cafes with wireless. Wireless cafes are my preferred way of using the internet, once every three days or so. Sometimes it’s frustrating feeling so removed from the internet. However, this also means that I won’t be wasting any time when I do end up using it. Wireless cafes often have Arab music blaring, young people have their laptops scattered across tables, coffee flows freely, and smoke from cigarettes and sheeshas (aka hookahs) fills the air. Access to some infamous websites such as Facebook and YouTube are banned, but for the most part, everyone is allowed to peruse the internet at their leisure.

The first problem I encountered with the house was the bathroom, which too often seems to be the problem in Damascus. When I looked at the place, I simply peaked my head inside the doorway and it seemed fine. For some reason, I didn’t notice that the ceiling is about 5 feet, 9 inches tall. Apparently I’m the only one in the house that will have to duck a few inches in the bathroom. I also discovered that when standing in the shower, I have to duck about 6 inches because it stands on a 3-inch platform. On my first full day there, I woke up around 10 AM and thought I’d take a shower. But I soon found out from the mother that there is only hot water between the hours 7 AM and 9 AM. She filled up a large bucket with hot water that was mechanically heated in a large blue barrel. She also gave me a metal dish that looked something like a dog food dish. This will take some getting used to. But it also might pressure me to get up early on the weekends, which I typically have trouble doing.

Despite the many things that I’ll have to get accustomed to, the house is in a very good location in the Old City. It sits in the middle of a small souq (market), with all sorts of goods available for purchase. It is also right across the street from Sayyida Ruqayya, a Shi’a mosque. To get to the front door of the house, I’m forced to work my way through a large crowd of worshipers, regardless of the hour. This also places the house within a two minute walk from the Umayyad Mosque. The call to prayer from the Umayyad is quite loud from inside the house. It is one of the oldest and largest mosques in the world. I visited the Umayyad a couple days ago and plan on visiting Sayyida Ruqayya sometime this week. Both mosques are a fascinating sight.

I made several good purchases at various shops around Damascus over the past week. I somehow found the shop where I bought the government-issued notebook with the Assad’s (Hafez, Bashar, and Basel) on the front cover for 20 cents. This time I made sure to buy more than one, buying all 15 that the shopkeeper had on hand. He was also amazed that I answered his question about who was on the front cover. I found this to be a perfect opportunity to bargain for a discount. Those that I don’t fill with Arabic in the coming months will make for excellent gifts when I return to the U.S. in June.

I’ve also found several good shops that sell American and Arab films. I don’t particularly watch too many movies, but it’s hard not to snatch up movies that only recently entered the theaters in the U.S. They each typically cost around $1, but if you buy enough at one time, the shopkeepers are always willing to make a good deal. Apparently there are copyright rules on Syrian movies, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with American movies. The family I’m staying with typically watches one movie per day. The six-year old boy is quite proud of his collection of around 200 movies. Interestingly, not a single one is an Arab film. The family told me that they only like American movies and weren’t familiar with any of the Arab movies that I purchased, which I thought were classics. Their collection ranges from Titanic to American History X. The six-year old boy has tried to convince me to watch a “classic” American movie with him on numerous occasions. Perhaps I’ll try convincing the family to watch one of the Arab films that I’ve bought, to spare myself from having to sit through an American movie. This might be a little selfish, but the less English the better.

I occasionally find myself making some unnecessary purchases at the souq to simply try out my negotiating skills in Arabic. Very few prices are actually set and it’s useful to know that there is room for bargaining. I don’t like to think of myself as a “tourist,” so I’m often amused when a European tourist enters a shop and pays a ridiculous price, simply because they were told that that was the price. I’ve found that the Syrians are much better at negotiating than the Egyptians. They’re more calm and the prices typically don’t start out as high as they do in Cairo. The abrasiveness of most Egyptian shopkeepers are difficult to find in Damascus. At times the abrasiveness is frustrating, but it too can be rather entertaining.

Perhaps the most entertaining experience I had this past week was when I went to get an extension on my visa in with the Maktab al-Hijrah wa al-Jawazat (The Office of Immigration and Passports). I’ve heard horror stories from other foreigners who have spent an entire day trying to find their way around the building to get various papers signed, stamped, and filed. However, a Syrian friend of mine said that if I went with him, it would only take 30 or 45 minutes. Of course, I took him up on the offer. He made the taxi driver go to the side of the building to begin the journey. Just around the corner of the front of the building, he walked up to an old man with a fanny pack. From his fanny pack, he pulled out a stamp for a few Syrian coins. Ten feet away stood another guy who pulled out a form to fill in some of my information. My Syrian friend filled the paper out on the hood of a car parked along the side of the street, as I watched cars speed by, coming within an inch or two of my shoes. Inside the building itself, there was no order whatsoever. The first destination was a small room filled with about 50 people pushing up against one another trying to get to the front. Approximately ten workers sat around a few tables. They all wore military uniforms. Some were stamping papers, some were examining passports, and others were chain-smoking cigarettes. After pushing my way to the front, an employee pulled out a book that measured nearly 4 feet long and 3 feet wide. It barely fit on the table. He stamped my passport, signed off on my paperwork, and proceeded to write my information in the enormous book. I was then sent to another room where I had to wait in one of many “supervisor offices.” When I got to the front of the line, the supervisor hung up one phone only to pick up another, and put out one cigarette only to light up another. As he stared at the wall talking on the phone, he stamped my form and threw the paper on a stack with hundreds of other papers. I had to enter some 10 rooms, all for various reasons. There were many other details from this experience, but this should give you the general idea. I have to go back to the building to get another visa extension in two months. I’d like to say that I’m looking forward to it, but I’m definitely not. Trying to find your way through the bureaucracy in the Middle East is always a frustrating process.

Most people running around and pushing to the front of the “lines” at the Immigration building held Iraqi passports. They were Iraqi refugees trying to get extensions on their visas. So there it was. A lone American among a swarm of Iraqis, both of us trying to extend our visas in Syria. I still haven’t had an extensive conversation with an Iraqi in Damascus, but several people have said that they’re from Iraq after finding out that I’m an American. I always wait for a negative reaction from them, but the ones I have met so far have all been happy to meet an American not in a military uniform. I will likely discuss the issue of Iraqi refugees in Syria in a future report, after becoming more familiar with the topic in general, and becoming more familiar with the people affected by it in particular. At the Immigration building, I actually saw several Iraqis with scarred faces and flesh. This was a little startling. While these wounds could have come from anything, I could only help but wonder what exactly happened to them, where they came from, if their families were still alive, etc. Despite the U.S. being at war in Iraq, most Americans are far removed from the situation. Despite studying Iraqi politics in the U.S., I can still only get so close to the real situation. Hopefully being in Syria will help me get closer to the realities, without having to go to Baghdad itself.

Yesterday, I had my first Arabic class at the University. It seems quite intensive, so I’m looking forward to it. Despite having few obligations during the past two weeks, I somehow kept fairly busy walking around Damascus for several hours each day, stopping at shops, talking to various random people, and visiting a few sites. Even though I promised last week that other reports will be shorter, all future reports will actually be much shorter in length. Classes at the University and lessons with a private tutor a few evenings each week will definitely keep me more consistently busy. I also plan on discussing more politics in the next report. As an American studying in Damascus, I can never escape it. It’s what so many people here want to discuss with me. It seems that most conversations with Syrians go straight to politics. With this, I definitely can’t complain.

Until next week, Ma’salaama!