"When our interests matched, the Americans have been good to us, and when the interests differed, they wanted us to mold ourselves to them, which we refused"
About this Quote
The line distills a realist account of power and principle in foreign policy. It asserts that Washington treats relationships as conditional upon converging interests, and that when they diverge the demand is conformity. Embedded is a claim to sovereignty: the refusal to be molded is framed as national self-respect rather than obstinacy. It also casts the United States as a hegemon that universalizes its preferences, turning political disagreements into tests of loyalty.
There is a specific history behind the stance. Damascus and Washington have alternated between tactical cooperation and open hostility for decades. After 9/11, Syrian intelligence cooperated with the United States against jihadist networks, even as Syria remained aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Ties soured over the Iraq War, accusations that Syria enabled fighters crossing the border, and the 2005 crisis following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which led to intensified sanctions. The 2011 uprising and the brutal civil war that followed produced a break: the United States called on Bashar al-Assad to step aside and supported segments of the opposition, while Damascus cast the conflict as a defense against terrorism and foreign meddling. Against that backdrop, the charge that Washington rewards alignment but punishes independence echoes wider regional grievances about regime change, sanctions, and conditional aid.
The phrase carries a dual function. It resonates with a popular anti-imperial narrative in the Middle East, where smaller states resist being folded into a great power’s agenda. At the same time, it is a rhetorical shield for a beleaguered ruler, turning international isolation into evidence of principle and deflecting attention from domestic repression and wartime atrocities. The tension it highlights is real: major powers often fuse ideals with interests, and smaller states pay a price when they assert autonomy. Whether that autonomy serves the public good or entrenches authoritarianism remains the unresolved question lurking beneath the claim of refusing to be molded.
There is a specific history behind the stance. Damascus and Washington have alternated between tactical cooperation and open hostility for decades. After 9/11, Syrian intelligence cooperated with the United States against jihadist networks, even as Syria remained aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Ties soured over the Iraq War, accusations that Syria enabled fighters crossing the border, and the 2005 crisis following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which led to intensified sanctions. The 2011 uprising and the brutal civil war that followed produced a break: the United States called on Bashar al-Assad to step aside and supported segments of the opposition, while Damascus cast the conflict as a defense against terrorism and foreign meddling. Against that backdrop, the charge that Washington rewards alignment but punishes independence echoes wider regional grievances about regime change, sanctions, and conditional aid.
The phrase carries a dual function. It resonates with a popular anti-imperial narrative in the Middle East, where smaller states resist being folded into a great power’s agenda. At the same time, it is a rhetorical shield for a beleaguered ruler, turning international isolation into evidence of principle and deflecting attention from domestic repression and wartime atrocities. The tension it highlights is real: major powers often fuse ideals with interests, and smaller states pay a price when they assert autonomy. Whether that autonomy serves the public good or entrenches authoritarianism remains the unresolved question lurking beneath the claim of refusing to be molded.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Bashar
Add to List
