August 09, 2006

The Key Syrian Role

Boaz Ganor:

THE ADDRESS to turn to in reaching a cease-fire agreement that will enable Israel to achieve some of the goals listed above is not Hizbullah or Iran - and hardly the Lebanese government (which is still influenced by Syria) - but Syria. Therefore Israel must pressure Syria effectively and wisely, using all the means at its disposal in the military, political, economic and diplomatic arenas.

The threat of military force against Syria should not be ruled out at this stage. However, in addition to using the stick, there is a need for carrots too - incentives that will change Syria's cost-and-benefit calculations.

The first step is to try to understand how the unholy alliance between Syria and Iran came about and recognize that this alliance is artificial, illogical (even by Middle Eastern standards) and goes against the Syrians' basic interests.

For example, Iran is controlled by a radical Shi'ite Islamic regime striving to export the Shi'ite revolution to all Shi'ite communities and, in practice, the entire world, starting with Lebanon. This is why Iran has established special forces such as its Revolutionary Guards.

Syria's Alawite regime, in contrast, is not a radical Islamic regime and is actually threatened from both inside and out by radical Islamic sources. Therefore, were Iran to achieve its goals in the Middle East it would directly threaten Bashar Assad's regime in the long term.

A change in American-Israeli policy toward Syria is liable to help Bashar Assad make the right choice - that is, the choice that suits his real interests. It would lead Assad to follow the precedent set by Libya's Mu'ammar Gaddafi (who, like Assad, has nothing in common with radical Islam). Following extensive secret talks with the CIA, Gaddafi made the rational decision to leave the "axis of evil" and join the enlightened world; and he was well rewarded for it.

THE CURRENT situation with Syria calls for quiet diplomatic action led by the Americans and moderate Arab countries.

But we don't believe in direct, high-level diplomacy (whether quiet or otherwise) with our foes anymore. It's deemed weak-kneed, a quaint pre-9/11 notion, or such. But avoiding these difficult dialogues, particularly in the midst of the increasing carnage in Israel and Lebanon, strikes me as very bad policy. Even somewhat "lazy", to quote Dick Armitage.

Note: A few nits to pick with Ganor's op-ed: 1) I think threatening military action on Syria right now would be irresponsible and likely counter-productive, even in combination with carrots and 2) while I agree that Syrian and Iranian interests diverge significantly in large part, two mitigating factors are worth noting: A) to the extent Bashar's minority Alawite status has him keen to contain too strong Sunni influence in Syria--Syrian and Iranian interests converge (but again, only in limited fashion), with regard to Sunni containment strategies and B) we should also remember Damascus has historically been quite close to Teheran given their joint opposition to Saddam Hussein over the course of many decades, which has led to well developed ties between the two countries. Both "A" and "B" above are somewhat glossed over by Ganor.

Don't miss this additional view from Israel calling for discussions with Syria. Unlike increasingly fanatical neo-cons who are rabidly calling for the war to be expanded to "Syran" (hilarious!), and related sophomoric and hyperbolic fare, it is worth noting that sane Israelis (who actually have to live in the neighborhood) aren't being as clownishly jingoistic about expanding the adventure to new theaters.

Posted by Gregory at August 9, 2006 11:39 PM