The Syrian Gambit
Syrian President Bashar Assad has been signaling through western media that he is interested in resuming peace negotiations with Israel unconditionally.
He urged Israeli Prime Minister Ulmert to try him out, “call his bluff”.
This well-played rhetoric places Israel in a difficult position. Israel can ill-afford to be perceived as war-mongers in the world (as if it’s not already perceived as such in most fronts), and placing preconditions on peace negotiations while the other side has none such conditions makes us look, prima facie, rather bad.
Moreover, it gives Assad a breathe of fresh legitimacy. Even before any word is spoken, he already knows that one way or another, a peace deal would give him most, if not all of the Golan Heights. The end result in a deal with Israel is pretty much a given.
Israeli demand that he first stop supporting terror as to indicate that his policy towards Israel has truly changed suddenly seems childish. You make peace with enemies, not friends, right?
It clearly echoes failed Israeli policy in the Palestinian arena that “we do not negotiate under fire”.
Assad, for his part, if he is at all serious about true normalized peace, would want to have his support for terrorism as a card on the negotiating table, not something he unilaterally gives up even before the talks. That would be dishonourable for him, make him seem like a west-appeaser, and in the case that a peace deal fails, could even destabilize his grip on Syria and Lebanon.
If he is not serious about a peace deal, merely negotiating gives him prestige as he manoeuvres himself out from the US-led axis of evil, and gives him a de facto UN-sanction for supporting terrorism.
Having said that, there is reason to believe a peace deal is in fact a Syrian strategic interest. A peace deal with Israel means lifting of US-led axis of evil sanctions. It could mean US investments and compensations a-la the Egyptian peace deal, and depending on the exact details, Assad could win over Lebanon as well as the Golan Heights, and become the most significant player in the Arab arena with mere diplomacy. A great achievement, no doubt.
American interest is, however, quite different. The neocons wants to democratize the Middle East. While it’s not a given that Syria and Iran become strong allies, but splitting them in the current model seems impossible, Syria has no exit points without a lot of unilateral actions, which would be dishonorable and borderline suicidal for the Assad regime. From the US POV, Syria are causing trouble in pseudo-democratic Lebanon, and they’re stirring up trouble in the already-troubled Iraq. For the US it’s a matter of divide and conquer. It can ill-afford to have an Israeli peace deal with Syria, while Syria still maintains ties with Iran and terrorist organizations, and Assad will not severe his ties until a very late stage in negotiations (if at all), and probably only in exchange for Lebanon. So, as far as the US is concerned, Syria is not ready for peace. This of course, stands in contrast with the Baker report, that may very well define the Democrats foreign affairs in the mid east in the wake on a 2008 victory.
The question is, should Israel be tying it’s foreign policy so tightly with that of the US? Do we even have a choice in the matter anymore? Could Israel negotiate peace without US backing and support? I doubt Israel would go against US President’s personal axis of evil imperative. We can’t afford to lose US support, but what price will we pay when the next war comes? And the peace deal that comes after it? What price did the Lebanese pay for Desert Storm?
The Syrian move made here, therefore, is genius. It splits up the Israeli front, half of which take his words at face value and half with a suspicious ire, it appeals to the US Baker-Hamilton Report supporters worldwide, places the ball in the Israeli court where it once was in theirs, and if nothing else, it legitimizes Syria’s next war.
Tagged as Assad, Baker-Hamilton Report, Bush Administration, foreign policy, israel, Israeli-Arab Conflict, lebanon, middle east, Olmert, Peace, Syria, War + Categorized as Current Events
Now is the time to break out the big cannons. We need full time, fully working and fully reasonable strategists (and we have more than a few here and outside).
While I don’t know Assad personally I doubt he thought about this move alone and I’m quite sure it in-sync with other Iranian intentions that will be revealed over time.
We need to stop thinking and acting by impulse (which we continue to do not only in the security/diplomatic arena, but with every other thing in this country) and start drafting drafts for a long and painful battle of the minds.
This is, in part, the first fires of a new cold war with a new terror balance and we should start acting accordingly and start thinking a bit more to the future than 10 minutes.
I think that the first steps is to “fall” into the Syrian trap and start negotiating. Unfortunately they acted first and we don’t have the luxury of not following on. While it may legitimize to some extent Syria’s continued support in terror, we can (or should I say “might”) call the bluff on this one (as we should).
At this point in time I do fear the war is an inevitable step towards a better middle-east. There are too many participants with too many interests and it seems that post-war middle east will probably be a cleaner slate to start drafting upon a better future.