Alwaght- At the time of the Cold War period, the US foreign policy was placed on supporting the Israeli regime, Washington�s strategic ally in the region, the region�s autocratic anti-communism regimes and providing security for the region�s oil transferring corridor to the high seas. Both the dissolution of the Soviet Union as well as the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the US has transformed what was seen by the American politicians as the national security.

The Middle Eastern policy of the US was given special place. Regarding Washington�s Greater Middle East plan, it must be said that on the one hand the plan faced a severe Arab and Muslim countries� opposition. Ankara and Tel Aviv, however, were exceptions, because they saw the plan as being in their best interest. On the other hand, due to the US� failures of policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Greater Middle East initiative has lost its prestige and its practical viability.

Being in the circle of the tough opponents of the Greater Middle East plan, Syria accused Washington of intending to chop up the region�s Arab countries. Abdul Halim Khaddam, then Vice President of Syria, asserted that the US had turned a blind eye to the many Israeli crimes committed in Palestine and other Arab countries and it sought to impose the Greater Middle East initiative on the Arab states.

However, since the eruption of the Syrian crisis, Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, has described Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President, as a reformist and well-educated person. But as the protests and clashes in Syria continued to roll on, the US� policy towards Syria�s crisis saw a shift.

At the beginning, presenting supports to President al-Assad�s opponents, the US sought to create a sort of balance of military power between the Syrian government and the opposition forces. But the Washington�s balancing approach in Syria was hit big after Russia stepped in the internal Syrian crisis.

The White House�s officials admitted that they had made strategic mistakes. Now and in the shadow of new developments and after the international meetings of the global powers, including the latest United Nations Security Council�s meeting on Syria�s crisis, it can be deemed that the Syrian developments and this country�s future are of extraordinary significance for the US and other Western countries. In other words, Syria�s strategic role and position in changing the balance between the following elements have bolstered Syria�s significance and immediacy compared to Iraq in the eyes of Washington and its allies.

Among the most important motives for the strategic shift of policy on Syria and reasons of Syria�s significance for the West, the following elements could be pointed to.

- Syria�s role in changing the balance between the Axis of Resistance and the Israeli regime.

- Syrian place in possible superiority of the regional players like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in their rivalry with Iran.

- Syrian significance for establishment of new security arrangements in the region by the US and the NATO.

-Syria�s role in transforming the power equations between Russia and the US. Syria is the last place where Moscow has a toehold in Southwest Asia.

- Seizing the control of energy resources especially gas reserves in Syria and preventing weaponization of the energy by the rival powers.

Also, It should be pointed out that during the initial years of al-Assad�s presidency, the US-Syria ties saw an improvement. However, due to some Washington-Damascus' differences over such issues as Lebanon, Palestine and Syria�s close relations with Iran, their ties saw a decline and after American invasion of Iraq, al-Assad�s supports for Iraq sent Syria-US relations deteriorated.

By Alwaght