U.S., Syria Join in a Marriage of Convenience : NEWS ANALYSIS

Syrian President Hafez Assad on Monday finally got what he has wanted for more than a decade from the United States--public recognition that no deal in the Middle East can be complete without Syria’s concurrence.

That recognition was implicit in Secretary of State James A. Baker III’s announcement that he would visit Syria this week to coordinate the campaign to isolate Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Baker said President Bush felt it was time for “a face-to-face dialogue” with Assad.

Although an alliance between Syria and the United States would have been unimaginable just a few months ago, both governments have much to gain from the relationship. Both seem willing to set aside deep disagreements to promote what is, for now at least, a marriage of convenience.

For Washington, which has been trying to cultivate improved relations with Damascus for more than a year, Syria brings political and military strength to the Egyptian-Saudi Arabian coalition, making it the most influential grouping in the Arab world. Syria’s inclusion also gives the coalition credibility as something more than just a Western operation.

What Syria stands to gain is increased prominence in the Middle East as a player with whom Washington must deal on issues ranging from the Palestinians to the fate of Hussein. By sending troops to join Arab forces in Saudi Arabia, Syria also is likely to receive generous financial support from the kingdom.

Syria has always been able to play the spoiler in regional affairs because of its influence with the Palestine Liberation Organization, its military presence in Lebanon, its manipulation of Shiite Muslim masses and its assertive foreign policy. But what Assad has always wanted was to be a kingmaker, not just a spoiler. That is just what a new relationship with the United States could give him.

“With this new opening in Syrian-American relations, we are seeing a strategic convergence that wasn’t present before,” said Martin Indyk, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s important to keep Assad on our side. He is in a key position. As long as we don’t exaggerate his moderation, this is a positive development.”

Assad, a former air force commander who seized control of Syria in a bloodless coup in 1970, runs a regime only slightly less brutal than that of Hussein.

His support of terrorism earned Syria a place on the State Department’s list of countries sponsoring international terrorism--along with Iran, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea and Libya. Many diplomats believe Assad at least tacitly approved the suicide bomber’s mission that killed 241 U.S. servicemen in Beirut in 1983.

Amnesty International has identified 65 forms of torture used on Syrian political prisoners. Middle East Watch, another human rights organization, says Syria holds at least 7,500 political prisoners and routinely persecutes its Jewish, Palestinian and Kurdish minorities.

In 1980, Assad ordered the massacre of 700 inmates at Tadmur Prison after a presidential guard tried to kill him with a hand grenade. And in 1982, his troops turned their artillery on Hama, Syria’s fifth largest city, to flush out some Muslim fundamentalists. A total of 20,000 Syrian civilians were killed.

Although Assad has long sought better relations with the West, Middle East experts doubt that his dispatch of troops to the Arabian peninsula and his embrace of Egypt and Saudi Arabia indicate that he is now a reformist who intends to join the so-called moderates of the Arab world. Rather, they say, Assad is an opportunist.

He lined up against Hussein at least partly because both are in competition for the leadership of the Baath Party, which is based on Arab nationalism and socialism. When Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, Assad jumped in to back Iran.

But all the while, he continued to receive about $1 billion a year from Saudi Arabia, which feared Iran’s fundamentalist revolution and supported Iraq. As usual, Assad was a master at playing both sides against the middle.

He also took advantage of the Cold War, turning to the Soviet Union for massive shipments of armaments but never granting Moscow any real influence in his domestic or foreign policies. The United States countered the Soviet buildup in Syria by arming Israel in an attempt to maintain military parity. Arab diplomats note that Baker’s visit to the Middle East does not include a stop in Israel--an unusual itinerary for any U.S. secretary of state.

Washington has been involved with Syria in the past, and in fact arranged a coup. In 1949, the CIA worried about the large Communist Party in Syria and was instrumental in supporting the army’s overthrow of the government.

CIA operative Stephen Meade later cabled Washington that “over 400 Commies (in) all parts of Syria have been arrested.” It was the first military coup in the post-colonial Middle East and set a dangerous precedent.

By 1973, in the wake of the Arab-Israeli War, Washington recognized Syria’s importance as a regional power. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger shuttled in and out of Damascus while negotiating a cease-fire and disengagement accord between Syria and Israel.

The next year U.S. economic aid to Syria exceeded $60 million, according to Middle East Watch. Relations changed dramatically under the Reagan Administration, which incorrectly viewed Syria as a Soviet surrogate.

Tensions increased after Israel’s American-supported invasion of Lebanon in 1982. U.S. Navy fighter planes struck Syrian SAM missiles in Lebanon the next year. Syria then shot down two F-14 reconnaissance fighters Nov. 10, 1983, capturing--and later releasing--the American pilot who survived.

The Bush Administration, which many Arabs generally see as more even-handed in the Arab-Israeli dispute than its predecessor, has managed to gradually improve relations with Syria.