One of the nations that has been in the throes of civil unrest since January is Syria. The nation, like many others in the Middle East and Africa that have seen people’s movements dedicated to ousting a regime and engendering social change, has seen a corrupt Ba’ath Party regime rule in an authoritarian manner for over 40 years, with long-time leader Hafez al-Assad handing power over to his son, current leader Bashar al-Assad, upon his death in 2000.

Although many of the social issues demanded by protesters are similar to those in places like Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia, there is a major difference between the Syrian uprising and the people-led movements in these other nations.

It begins with the phrase “people-led.”

While there is absolutely no denying the abuses imposed on the citizens of Syria by the al-Assad family, particularly in the massacre of people currently living in Daraa, one should take a more discerning look at the opposition and ultimately question the true objective of this movement. More importantly, what is the current direction of the uprising in the region as a whole? The answer might shock you.

It is true that many nations in the region lack strong opposition parties due to suppression from the government, and opposition parties or large organizations did not lead the protests in Tunisia and Egypt. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of Egypt’s largest opposition parties, firmly declared itself as mere auxiliaries in the protests. The same cannot be said for Syria, considering that the initial protests back in February were spearheaded in part by the Reform Party of Syria.

The party is not based in Syria, but rather in the United States of America.

Meanwhile, recent cables released through WikiLeaks suggest that America has supported another opposition party, the Movement for Justice & Development in Syria, with financial assistance to the tune of over $6 million from 2006 to at least September 2011, if not currently. The MJD, headquartered in England, had members who were formerly part of the ruling Ba’ath Party that had only stepped down in order to “be on the safe side” should problems arise.

Meanwhile, the US has also helped fund a London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, which has been a key player in filming coverage of the protests.

President al-Assad has echoed his Libyan counterpart Muammar el-Qaddafi in denouncing the protests as a foreign-led movement, and based on the evidence above, he might not sound so crazy after all.

But this is not just about Syria. This is about a region that in February, America was losing its influence over. Allies like the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia were toppling, and the focus of the international community was on these nations and a nation like Bahrain, an ally on the verge of losing power.

But while these situations have entered a phase of status quo, and even suppression, in the case of Bahrain, the international community has begun to focus on the Civil War in Libya and now this emerging situation in Syria. Unfortunately, the U.S. has also ignored the fact that unlike Mubarak, Ben Ali and Bahrain’s Khalifa regime, al-Assad has actually removed the state of emergency that has been in effect since 1963, and the protests have somehow spiked after the lifting of it — one of the protesters’ major demands.

In a few short months, America and its allies have transformed the nature of the popular protest movement by turning the spotlight on situations and nations it can actually control, removing the power away from the people and back to the murky political waters that have ruled the Middle East for decades.