Syrian President Bashar Assad said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal that his regime will not suffer the same fate as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak because "Syria has no ties with Israel." This claim deserves a careful reading, especially as it relates to U.S. policy of engagement with Damascus and the current uprisings in the country.

First off, the statement by Assad clearly reveals that he has no intention of taking part in serious peace negotiations that would yield results, since he acknowledges that his rule rests on the regime's antagonism towards Israel. Indeed, in the same interview Assad concedes that Syria is comparable to Egypt economically but not politically. According to Assad, his people support the regime for "ideological reasons." Additionally, Syrian maintains strong relations with Hezbollah and Hamas, providing them with Iranian arms and using its positions as interlocutor to gain strategic importance. The Syrian claim and its actions on the ground beg the question: given the Syrian position, could the US policy of opening up to Damascus really promote stability in the region, and more specifically, can it be conducive towards resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict? If the raison d'être of the regime in Damascus is 'resisting Israel's hegemony,' is there any real possibility of a breakthrough?

Yesterday, for the first time in the history of the country, a group of dissidents, whose estimate varies between 50 and 300, depending on the source, gathered in Damascus to protest against the oppressive regime. True to its reputation, the Syrian police force crushed the dissidents, arresting 30 of them.  Among those arrested were renowned civil and human rights advocates and bloggers who had recently been released from jail.

Washington called on Damascus to "exercise restraint," but, given the several carrots that the regime has been offered by the U.S. Administration, it has not been deterred. In January, the U.S. sent Ambassador Robert Ford to Damascus, and in the last months has re-opened channels for Syrian-Israeli peace talks. Furthermore, in a speech delivered yesterday on the need for reforms in the Middle East, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry praised President Assad for his "generosity with him" but failed to make mention of the protests taking place in parts of Syria, including Damascus. Many observers are left wondering how the disconnect between the regime's talks and actions has evaded American policy makers. Concerned with the security threats that could emanate from collapsing 'friendly regimes,' Israel's defense establishment has reportedly been eager to resume talks with its Syrian neighbor, which appears to be more stable than both Egypt and Jordan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, remains skeptical

Progress in this direction seems to have arrived at the wrong time. With the Arabs protesting in the streets and crying out to be heard, engaging their despotic leaders is likely to raise their frustration at American policies in the region. The Syrian regime, which has been revived by unconditional engagement and glitzy coverage in some media outlets, is unlikely to show any restraint in crushing its people. Amidst the current uprisings, it is imperative to review the current policies and to reassess alliances, for any peace agreement may prove futile if peace is not achieved between the countries' peoples.