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....

Print Friendly

(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

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


RightWeb
share