Syria's foiling of the attack by Islamist terrorists on the US embassy in Damascus has added a new twist to the strained relations between the United States and President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Attackers shouting religious slogans attempted to storm the US embassy in Damascus on Tuesday.  At least four assailants tried to blow it up with a car bomb before engaging the Syrian security guards in a fierce gun battle.

The attack comes at a time of troubled relations between the United States and Syria. The White House has made it clear it considers Syria a sponsor of terrorism. So much so that it withdrew its ambassador from Damascus following the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, which the US blamed on Syria. President Assad's alleged support of Hezbollah and Hamas hasn’t done much to win him many friends in Washington either. Meanwhile Syria has criticized US policies in the region, including the war in Iraq and staunch support for Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah.

However, while Syria's secular regime may provide backing for religious militants in other countries, it seems a lot less happy with the prospects of Islamic fundamentalism on its own doorstep. In this the US and Syria may find a common cause. The German press on Wednesday looks at what the implications of the attack could be for the fraught ties between Washington and Damascus.

The Financial Times Deutschland ponders whether the foiling of the attack by Syrian forces could really offer a way of improving this extremely tense relationship. It writes that the very reasons that Washington is suspicious of Syria -- its close ties with Hezbollah and Iran -- are also what makes it "a key partner for any lasting peace in the Middle East." The attack is a reminder of this ambiguous role. "Syria has always cooperated with the West in the fight with al-Qaida and its sympathizers," and has offered itself as a reliable partner. However, the paper offers a word of caution: there has already been speculation that the Syrian secret services could have deliberately allowed the attack to escalate, "in order to then show what an important ally they are." The fact that such a strategy is even conceivable, "says a lot about Syria's regime."

The conservative daily Die Welt writes that the attack was aimed at the Americans and not at Syria's authoritarian regime, even though it is dominated by the minority Alawite sect, which many devout Muslims consider heretics. It should be little comfort that the attack doesn’t bear the mark of al-Qaida, the paper writes. There are now going to be more attacks by small autonomous groups who have very different motivations, but who are all carrying out "religiously justified freedom and independence struggles against unbelievers." It is only surprising, the paper concludes, that Damascus had been spared up to now.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung sees the attack as an indication of renewed Islamic militant activity in Syria. And it sends a clear message: "President Bashar al-Assad's secular regime is obviously not in a position to guarantee complete security and peace in the country." In the 1980s the regime cracked down on Islamic fundamentalism. Twenty years later and the rise of political Islam in the region means that fundamentalists are once again feeling in the ascendant in Syria. At the same time, "the leadership in Damascus is under pressure from outside and isolated." The paper warns that this latest attack should make those pushing for Assad's overthrow pause for thought. If militant Islam starts demanding to have a say in the running of the country, "it could descend into a spiral of violence," just like Iraq. And this could also explain "the strange attack in the high-security zone in Damascus." The paper suggests that the regime deliberately allowed the Islamists to launch the attack, "in order to demonstrate its own indispensability to the world."