The US cross-border airstrike on Syria triggered a wave of domestic instability in Syria. If the deep-rooted networks of relationships that are prevalent in the region are pushed towards the edge any further, the entire Middle East could stumble into instability. The attack on the Syrian border village of al-Boukamal, 6 miles from the border with Iraq was a pretense for the international isolation of Damascus. However, criticism of the attack rose from not only the region: German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated Germany was not pleased with the attacks. But the general perception from region is that given the direction of US foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq, further attacks in Syria are likely to continue. If this is the case, Syria could drift into a civil war; and the ensuing instability would not be limited to Syria, but could possibly fireball into a conflict that would burn Lebanon and Israel. Civilian casualties incurred in the recent attack show the serious and deadly lack of intelligence involved. In addition, Abu Gadia, who was previously already declared to have been killed on the Iraq-Saudi Arabia border during a November 2006 operation, was again pronounced to be killed.
According to lobbyist groups in the US, recharged instability in the Middle East contradicts with the goals of the incoming Obama administration. While the Bush administration was marked by a US foreign policy stand based on the "war on terror" doctrine; there are signs that the president-elect will lean towards an approach that will not rule out the option of "dialogue with terrorists". However, reaching a fine balance in the Middle East is a difficult task. In order to understand this, we need to go back and examine assassination of Hariri and the events that followed.

Background
After the occupation of Iraq, Syria, and indirectly Lebanon, became an important state in the region. Millions of hopeless Iraqis immigrated to Syria; the refugees consisted mostly of former Baathists and Saddam loyalists, Sunnis escaping from growing Shiite political pressure, and Turkmen and Arabs, increasingly uneasy about the Kurdish encroachment towards Mosul and Kirkuk. Shiite militias were on a witch hunt. With the aid of the Iranian Intelligence service, SAVAMA, officers who had fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war were murdered. Regional states and the US were deeply disturbed by the expanding Iranian influence of Iran over developments in Iraq. Sunni-majority states in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia which sees itself as the rightful guardian of Sunni Islam, anxious that a Shiite minority uprising fashioned after the Iraqi-Shiite example would erupt amongst their own population, decided to take certain precautions. These precautions essentially involved providing support to Sunni militias in Lebanon and killing of the "unbeliever Shiites" in Iraq. Saudi Arabia was sending money via Hariri to militias who were being trained in Palestinian camps in Lebanon, while trained Sunni militias used Syria to infiltrate into Iraq. The royal family in Riyadh and Hariri were the closest allies of the United States in the Middle East. However, Saudi Arabia and Hariri's main partner within the militias was the leader of Feth-ul Islam, Sakir El Absi. Militias who acquired the funds and military hardware from Saudi Arabia were responsible for assassinations, kidnappings and bombings in Iraq.
The primary actors behind this complex chain of relationships are Saudi Arabia, the leading oil partner of the US, Hariri and Syria. First, Hariri, the weakest link, was taken out of the formula. This broke apart the partnership. Then, the US mounted pressure on the Saudi royal family to halt its flow of financial aid to militias operating in Lebanese territory. With the conclusion of a political formula which would secure a greater share of power to Sunni Arabs in Iraq, Saudi Arabia conceded. When Sakir El Absi's militias based in the Narh El Bared camp, a Palestinian camp in Lebanon, went to the bank to withdraw their money only to learn than it was there, they tried to rob the bank. Clashes lasted for several days. In the end, Sakir El Absi fled from Lebanon after a collusive agreement,
Afterwards, under the authorization of an international decision, the US settled in Beirut to establish military infrastructure and lead the disarmament of illegal groups in Lebanon. However, disarmament has not yet been realized and meaningful progress on this point is nearly impossible. Participating states of the international force are reluctant to implicate themselves in the disarmament of these groups, especially Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Today, only Beirut remains from the otherwise broken Riyadh-Hariri-Damascus tripartite partnership. The question that should be asked now is how much control, if any at all, does Syria really have over the Sunni militias? Today, we do not know the exact number of Iraqi refugees in Syria. However, we do know that these refugees continuously cross the Syrian border into Iraq. There are some among the Iraqis in Syria who support the insurgency in Iraq or militias from outside that penetrate into Iraq. The sources of this support cannot be rooted out through armed force alone. However, the issue of border security of Iraq is being used as a tool to initiate a chain reaction that would result in regime change in Damascus. At least, this is the ruling perception. Attempts to bring about regime change in Syria were made in 2004, 2005 and 2006, but ended in failure. The revolt in the Kurdish region of Kamisli, where borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey intersect, had been suppressed harshly by Damascus. Moreover, Arab states are still deeply troubled by the issue of the resurgent Shiite groups. The precedent that Iraq has turned into continues to be a source of concern for other states in the region. However, Arab states appear to be hopeful from the change in the White House. Just few days after the election of Barack Obama, relations among foes in the Arab world appear to be warming. The visit of Jordanian King Abdullah to Qatar can be read as the first sign of this nascent phase. Obama's campaign slogan of "Change we can believe in" points to an encouraging shift from the ‘business as usual' stand of the Bush administration towards the Middle East, which drew severe demarcations between ‘moderate' Middle Eastern states and those that were deemed ‘radicals'. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt were placed in the ‘moderate' camp while Syria, Iran and Qatar belonged to the ‘radicals'. From this perspective, King Abdullah's Qatar visit is a meaningful indication of what trends can emerge in the new term in the dynamic ebb and flow of alliances in the region. The tensions between Saudi Arabia and Jordan, on one hand, and Qatar, on the other, have been apparent. A noticeable case in point is when the Qatari leader congratulated Hezbollah for their successful resistance during the Israeli operation of Lebanon. Leaders of other Arab states had reacted strongly to this. King Abdullah's Qatar visit means a new rapprochement, in other words, breaking the political ice. Such a visit would have made Washington uneasy during the Bush Administration; which is why Arab leaders were more measured in their actions.
The same also applies for Hosni Mubarak's Darfur visit. Mubarak's visit, who is seen as the big brother of the Arab world, to Darfur together with the Sudanese President, who is despised by the West, is a significant change. The new found flexibility and confidence displayed by both King Abdullah and Mubarak are most likely due to the more dialogue-friendly approach the President-elect is expected to take in his Middle East policy. It would not be farfetched to say that the main driver of polarization in the Arab World was Washington's policies towards the region.
Whatever Barak Obama says, those who believe that Syria should be "disciplined by force", will claim a powerful voice within his administration as well. The relaxation in the Arab world will soon leave its place to worries of becoming the "next target" of US aggression after a series of new attacks in Syria. But let's not forget, that for now, the honeymoon period continues.