Monday, July 24, 2006
Syria admits that it is in the driver's seat
Yesterday we discussed some of the challenges with the Bush administration's apparent strategy to split Syria from Iran and Hezbollah. This morning's New York Times has an article that channels the Syrian perspective. The Syrian "minister of expatriates," who is advertised as a "close advisor" to Bashar al-Assad, all but admits that the United States will have to deal with Syria in order to settle the fight in Lebanon.
The Bush administration’s approach of indirectly pressuring Syria to end its support for Hezbollah is doomed to failure, a top Syrian minister said Thursday.
Attacks, Day by DayButhaina Shaaban, the minister of expatriates and a close adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, said the chaos engulfing the region could be reduced only if Damascus and Hezbollah were directly involved in any negotiations. Washington has a policy of isolating Syria.
Got that? Syria is bragging that "the chaos engulfing the region" cannot be reduced unless Damascus -- in addition to Hezbollah -- is "directly involved in any negotiations."
In case that wasn't clear.
So, to reprise the question we have been asking for a week, what do we do about Syria? In addition to my post yesterday, Chester is hosting a discussion of this very topic over at his blog.
2 Comments:
By 
Jeremiah, at
Mon Jul 24, 08:39:00 AM:
This is the usual duplicity from the Arab players. There seem to me to be two questions to be asked and answered here: 1. Would we sit down with Hezbollah under any circumstances? It seems clear that we would not, and that therefore we should not sit down with Syria and Hezbollah under any circumstances, because we gain nothing and stand to lose much.
2. Can Israel finish this off by itself with only tacit support from the U.S. and no active opposition from other Arab players? It seems clear that they can, although they will bear a bit more than the usual opprobrium from those who deny their right to exist and defend themselves.
Given those two considerations, I think this approach is a failure, or at best a mask for a larger scale initiative.
By 
, at
Mon Jul 24, 09:15:00 AM:
Yesterday I posted asking and received one reply:
"If nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima was justified because it ended the war with a lower number of casualties tahn through conventional combat, why would not the same logic apply to Syria and Iran?!!
Were invasions planned, imminent, with invasion troops on the water in transit, and US casualties estimated to be 500,000 for the invasion, I would have no problem with this."
While all the discussions are intelectually stimulating and, at least to me a very pleasing activity, the remain exactly: "all talk but no action" while we are inexorably going towards a major confrontation with muslim fascists or extremists.
Today I have another question: the ansewr to which gives a crystal clear indication of the direction we are going in:
How successful have negotiations been in stopping an individual suicide bomber, the one wearing the explosive vest? Because it is extermely likely that we will have the same success dealing with Iran, which is the real source of the problem!
Just think, if Iran was not behind Syria would anybody really worry about Syria, except for Israel which can take care of themselves in this regard.
If I am correct in my assumptions, what is the point of negotiating with Syria?
Luc
