Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

No Help from Washington

(Inter Press Service) Amid regional fears of a summer war between Israel and Syria, the two countries may in fact be inching closer to a deal. Not even President George W....

(Inter Press Service)

Amid regional fears of a summer war between Israel and Syria, the two countries may in fact be inching closer to a deal. Not even President George W. Bush’s recent disclosures to Congress, intended to show nuclear collaboration between Syrian and North Korea, appear able to dent the resolve for peace, or at the very least, reduced tensions.

Earlier this month, Tel Aviv and Damascus publicly confirmed that they had been in unofficial contact, with high-level Turkish envoys acting as intermediaries. In remarks published last Thursday in the Qatari daily al-Watan, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan had informed him of Israel’s readiness to withdraw from the Golan in return for peace with Syria, a claim that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not deny.

But the positive momentum of Turkey’s "peace revival" met with a cool response from Washington officials.

Speaking on April 29 at the annual American Jewish Committee conference, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserted that "if Syria and Israel wish to pursue peace, the United States is never against peace."

"It’s just that, at this point," she said, "it’s been difficult to see Syrian behavior that has the prospect of being more stabilizing in the region, rather than the destabilizing behavior that we’re seeing."

In an interview with the Inter Press Service (IPS), former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy described the Bush administration’s position on Israeli-Syrian talks as "a semi-polite way of saying, ‘If you want to be schmucks, go ahead and do it.’"

The Bush administration’s stance is staked on an ideological position, said Levy. Diplomacy with Syria remains conditional upon a change in its "behavior"—basically, don’t talk to those with whom you have disagreements.

More fundamentally, the status of Israeli-Syrian peace talks seems to rest on Washington’s desire to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran, a policy that in effect subordinates Syria’s immediate interests—the return of the Golan, influence in Lebanon’s domestic politics, support of Hamas and Hezbollah—to the broader calculus of Bush’s fight for regional hegemony against the growing influence of Iran.

Following Israel’s September air strike on an alleged nuclear facility in Syria and the assassination of Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyah in one of the most heavily secured areas of Damascus, Syria cannot deny its security vulnerabilities. The destruction wrought by Israeli bombardment in the 2006 Lebanon War no doubt worries many in the Syrian regime about its ability to withstand and survive a military confrontation with Tel Aviv.

Using Turkey as an intermediary serves as an effective deterrent to that scenario.

"What this Turkish mediation attempts to do is create an expectation of progress, trying to reduce tensions, the ability to say, ‘We’re not on the precipice of violence,’ that there is a diplomatic option," said Levy. "In and of itself it is an act of de-escalation."

From Turkey’s perspective, the U.S. occupation of Iraq has created more chaos, enhanced the Kurdish separatist threat, and empowered Iran to emerge as a possible counter to Turkey’s position in the region. By mediating a successful Israeli-Syrian peace, Ankara can reinsert itself into the political arena, bolstering its own power and credibility on the international stage.

As Ankara facilitates the initial stages of a possible peace, the three sides are effectively laying the groundwork for a deal that will eventually require the support of a new administration in Washington.

"What we now need is to find common ground through the Turkish mediator," said Bashar al-Assad, adding that while the Bush administration had "neither the vision, nor the will to [push forward] the peace process," direct negotiations involving Washington might become possible under Bush’s successor.

With less than a year in office, Bush remains focused on the Annapolis process, a U.S.-led initiative for a decisive Israeli-Palestinian peace. Yet with Hamas’ continued isolation, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and an escalation of Israeli settlement activity on Palestinian land, the Annapolis progress appears in danger of collapse.

The Bush administration’s policy of isolating Syria hinges on the accusation of Damascus’ complicity in the 2005 assassination of Rafiq Hariri, a charge the regime has furiously denied. Many administration critics say Washington has no coherent strategy for how to deal with Syria; there is no end game.

As for the Turkish diplomatic track, major gaps still exist between the sides; Israeli polls consistently indicate that a majority of Israelis—approximately 70 percent—oppose withdrawing from the Golan, even in exchange for peace with Syria, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

While Olmert may prefer to keep the talks secret, Assad seems to want a more open, public embrace from the United States. Would an ambitious U.S.-Syrian normalization provide incentive to break Syria from Iran’s orbit? Even with Turkey serving as interlocutor, an actual diplomatic option from Washington may have to wait till next January, when Bush vacates the Oval Office.

"I think there is support in Israel; there’s a general positive sense, but no one, including the Turks, believe the U.S. role is replaceable," said Levy. "Therefore, the challenge becomes, how do you do this in the absence of a U.S. interest being involved?"

The answer, he added: "You can’t."

Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Khody Akhavi, "No Help from Washington," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates, May 8, 2008).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share