http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/pro-regime-mobs-storm-damascus-embassies-of-us-france.html"it seems likely that the regime itself put the crowds up to the attacks, since very little happens in Damascus that the Baath Party does not want to happen. This thesis is supported by the poor police response (to say the least) and the consequent need of US and French embassy troops to defend their buildings.
The US has ratcheted up financial sanctions on the Syrian elite, some members of which have seen bank accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere frozen, and has repeatedly called for al-Asad to meet his people’s demand to democratize.
Any background analysis must begin with the plain fact that the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein failed to produce an Iraq more favorable to Israel (indeed, the Shiite minions of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are substantially more anti-Israel than had been Saddam). The general view in the Middle East had been that
this failure convinced the Israeli security establishment that the al-Asad regime is preferable to a Sunni fundamentalist one. The latter is widely thought likely to come to power if al-Asad falls, though of course that prediction is speculative. Al-Hayat even ran a story to this effect in 2004 as I remember.
Clinton seemed to be warning al-Asad not to rely too much on US fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, and she signalled that Washington is increasingly complaisant about the possibility that the Baath will fall from power. Her remarks on Monday are the strongest ones yet directed at Damascus since the
Obama administration came into power determined to improve relations with Syria (that is why there is a US ambassador in Damascus to attack– the Bush administration used to like to pretend that Syria did not actually exist).Apparently Bush ignored Syria and let Assad do whatever he wanted within Syria, figuring that he was the lesser of two evils (and the Israelis agreed). Looks like Obama and Clinton seem not as inclined to let Assad do as he wishes to the Syrian people in the interest of stability
in the Middle East.
Sometimes it is easier to leave dictators alone. As long as they think you'll not rock their boat too much and they can keep the gravy train on the tracks, they can be more easily incentivized to "play nice" outside their borders. Clinton and Obama has evidently decided to "rock Assad's boat". We shall see if that is a wise approach compared to Bush's "ignore him in the interests of stability" strategy.