Thursday, May 01, 2008
Are Israel and Syria close to a deal?
There are rumors of a deal between Israel and Syria($). Whether or not such a deal is good for the United States, is it not wonderful that it might happen without us having to endure a single Rose Garden handshake? It would certainly validate the Bush administration's view that "peace" is largely the responsibility of the combatants and that any American role should be subtle rather than high in profile. I find myself rooting for the deal just to shut up the New York Times.
Anyway, Stratfor has the story, if it is a story:
Stratfor has received an unconfirmed report that the U.S. administration is currently reviewing a peace agreement drafted by Syria and Israel. Some of the terms of the alleged deal involve Syria regaining its military, political and economic influence in Lebanon in exchange for suppressing its militant proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Syria and Israel also reportedly came up with a system to create a demilitarized zone along the Israeli-Syrian border in which Syria would pull back four miles for every one mile that Israel pulls back its forces. The Golan Heights would be returned to Syria, though Israel would likely retain full rights to the key water source in the territory.
If this information is true, it would indicate the ongoing peace negotiations between Israel have reached a critical phase. Our first clue that these were not simply talks for the sake of talks came when the negotiations broke into the public sphere a little more than a week ago. The lack of denials followed by a public acknowledgment by both the Israeli and Syrian leaderships demonstrated that something serious was going on. The deal could evaporate given the complexities surrounding the issue, but if the two sides have actually crafted a peace agreement that is now being debated among U.S. officials in Washington, then the political map of the Middle East could undergo some major changes in the near future.
Over the years, Syria has carved out a place for itself as the regional pariah. It is a minority Alawite regime in a majority Sunni country. It openly harbors Palestinian militant leaders. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is the only Arab state allied with Iran. And it has directly supported the jihadist insurgency in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion. Taken together, these charges make behavior modification in Syria sound nearly impossible.
But it must be remembered that Syria’s core geopolitical interest is in Lebanon — its primary gateway to the Mediterranean basin. Without Lebanon, Syria is politically, economically and militarily hamstrung. For Syria to regain its regional footing, it must finagle its way into a peace agreement in which the Arab world and the West will recognize a Syrian hegemonic role in its western neighbor. The opportunity has come through Israel, and it makes sense for the Syrians to pursue it.
Tactically speaking, however, this will be a messy peace agreement to implement. Perhaps the messiest part of it all is that Syria will have to demonstrate that it will incur the risk and trouble of containing Hezbollah. A few Hezbollah heads would need to roll for Syria to pull this off, and the process may have even already started. The February assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah on Syrian soil, though still extremely murky, came at a critical point in these negotiations. We also cannot help but notice Syria’s unusual silence on its investigation of the assassination. If Syria were not engaged in serious peace talks with Israel, it would waste no time in playing the blame game to clear suspicion of its own involvement in the hit.
There is enough factual detail in the story, including that the deal has the support of France and Saudi Arabia, that it is probably true. There are a lot of losers, though, and they will try to break it up. These include Israel's hardliners and their supporters abroad (a group with which I often, but not always, agree), Hezbollah, Iran, and the people of Lebanon.
A cold but genuine peace between Israel and Syria is, in the abstract, easy compared to managing the region's other armed players. The important and as yet unanswered question is hinted at in Stratfor's last paragraph: Which country is to do the dirty work of containing Hezbollah, and what will Iran do in response? This "peace" may do nothing more than shape the next war.
Of course, if Syria really does want to come in from the cold -- meaning toward the Arabs and the United States and away from Iran -- it will be a change borne of Bush administration geopolitics. That it should come so soon after we greenlighted Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear project is an important lesson for people who believe that violence never solves anything.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu May 01, 08:57:00 AM:
If there is a peace agreement, most likely it will be seen in later years as Assad taking Olmert for a ride.
I have no confidence in Olmert to strike a deal that is fair for Israel, and no confidence in Assad to keep his word.
I am reminded of the UN "peacekeeping" troops in Lebanon that give a pass to Hezbollah importing arms.
By 
Ray, at
Thu May 01, 09:37:00 AM:
And now the reason for the reactor revelation comes out. Clearly, we're putting pressure on Syria not to back out, and to agree on those final points, by giving them a taste of what might be in store if they do back out.
That we can also use it to put pressure on the Norks is just icing on the cake.
By , at
Thu May 01, 09:41:00 AM:
Does anyone think a "hegemonic role" in Lebanon will be sufficient for Syria to give up their claim to the Golan Heights. Because giving that high ground back to Syria is a non-starter with Israel, no matter how lefty the current ruling party is.
By , at
Thu May 01, 10:04:00 AM:
A cold peace between Syria and Israel has some value, particularly when one considers the other areas of middle east progress achieved under Bush. I'm referring to Libyan disarmament, to the neutralization of the Baathist regime in Iraq and to the increasing efforts of the Saudi regime at moderation (of a sort). So those are good things, as is this (if it happens).
What absolutely kills me in this report is the portion of it that concerns Lebanon. This is not simply because Lebanon is a spectacular country containing a diverse population mostly yearning for freedom, though those things are true, but also because allowing the Syrians to prolong and rejuvenate their subjugation of Lebanon is strong evidence that this peace agreement won't last very long. The Syrians may choose to control Hezbollah, but it's not in their interest to destroy Hezbollah, to end it's threat to peace in the region. Neither is it in Syria's interest to end the threat Hamas poses to peace. These are both organizations that depend strongly on Syria for life, just as they depend on Iran.
My main problem is the complete lack of confidence I have in Israel's leadership. If this were Sharon making this deal, I'd think differently.
By K. Pablo, at
Thu May 01, 10:35:00 AM:
Teresita, it is likely that the "high ground" of the Golan is an obsolete military asset. Its value as an artillery observation point was definitely at play in the wars of '67 and '73, but in this era of laser-guided munitions and geo-synchronous satellites, possession of the Golan is probably more trouble than it's worth.
By davod, at
Thu May 01, 01:50:00 PM:
The Golan Heights. Holding the high ground still has stratgic value, even in this era of precision munitions.
The Golan Heights also is a major source of Israeli water,containing the headwaters of the Jordon rivr.
By , at
Thu May 01, 01:50:00 PM:
A Lebanese friend doubts such a deal could really be implemented, because the Druse live in the Golan. They like the Israelis and hate the Syrians. Jumblatt has been known to make deals in the past, though. He also questions exactly how much control the Syrians have over Hezbollah, saying the popular view in Lebanon is that Iran calls the shots with Nasrallah, not Syria. Why would Iran accept this deal?
By Escort81, at
Thu May 01, 01:59:00 PM:
So the Syrians whacked (or allowed the whacking of) Mughniyah as a signal as a part of a negotiation with the Israelis?? Huh?
Assad must have a great deal of confidence in his personal security detail if he OK'd that hit and is making steps to throw in with other Arab states and Israel, and will end or diminish his status as Tehran's pimp, and will attempt to "control" Hezbollah in Lebanon. I think the Mullahs would be a tad upset with Assad for cutting any such deal along these lines, and would not be reluctant to replace him (let's assume Iranian intelligence has assets in place all over Damascus). It was only 8 years ago that Arafat turned down a really good deal at Camp David because he knew he would be whacked by Hamas supporters if he accepted it, so Assad knows the rules of the game in the Middle East. He doesn't strike me as a guy with the cojones to break with the Mullahs.
That said, I am for anything that breaks the log jam, even if it turns out that it is a step backward to take two steps forward. I am not sure that we can feel very good about some sort of carve up of Lebanon's sovereignty as part of the deal, but the reality on the ground there is that there isn't much to begin with.
It also seems to me that if Assad breaks with Tehran, there are positive effects of that in Iraq, in the sense that Iran will be perceived as having been weakened. Shia Iraqis who might have contemplated aligning with Iran might think, hey, if Assad can cut a better deal with the West, maybe I can, too.
So how does this get policed? Any young males speaking Farsi in the Bekaa gets a bus ticket home? Syria somehow persuades all of the Hez forces in Beirut to turn in their AKs and rockets for a Starbucks gift card and go home?
I agree with K. Pablo, the H20 in the Golan is more important now than the tactical advantage of the high ground.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 01, 03:09:00 PM:
Wait... you're telling me that a cabal of regional powers is offering another, minor power up to an antagonist as a sacrificial offering in return for a promise of future peace? Is that the gist of it?
What year is this, 1938? And why don't people read freaking history books anymore?
By Escort81, at
Thu May 01, 07:21:00 PM:
DF82 - Who is Germany in your parallel, Syria or Iran?
Because if I were using The Godfather as a parallel, Syria is Tataglia and Iran is Barzini.
"Tataglia is just a pimp...it was Barzini all along."
And 1938 is not the only year that bigger powers offered up a small country to placate an antagonist (as you rightly point out, a strategy that often backfires). What makes 1938 special is that the antagonist was an industrialized Western European country that had made enourmous contributions to religion and culture in the West, and it went absolutely frickin' nuts, and had the ability to effectively wage war in a manner never before seen ("Blitzkrieg"). Fortunately, we beat the shit out of them.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 01, 11:16:00 PM:
I only meant to illustrate that a similar tragic play had been performed before. Analogous reasoning is a trap in international affairs, because every situation is different.
And yes, fortunately Syria is a relatively minor power. But that shouldn't excuse feeding them Lebanon. Being able to clean up a mistake doesn't justify committing it.
