Right Web

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

The Syria Option

A notion is gradually taking hold among some U.S. hardliners that is bound to make the Bush administration acutely uncomfortable. The idea? That...

A notion is gradually taking hold among some U.S. hardliners that is bound to make the Bush administration acutely uncomfortable. The idea? That sacrificing fledgling democratic progress in Lebanon is a price the administration should consider paying in order to settle the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. In April 2005, the “Cedar Revolution” warmed Washington hearts as an example of democracy making a foothold in the Middle East. With Israel now on the warpath to destroy Hezbollah, the administration needs to look for solutions.

Many suggest that Syria is the key. Mocked just months ago as a fool and a lightweight compared to his legendarily shrewd father, Syrian President Bashar Assad appears increasingly to have become the “go-to guy” in resolving the two-week-old war between Hezbollah and Israel.

Though neoconservatives and other hardliners in the Bush administration ruled out any thought of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveling to Syria-or of inviting Syrian officials to attend the July 26 multilateral conference on Lebanon in Rome-the notion that Washington will have to deal with Damascus is gaining steam, even among some influential hawks.

“Come Back, Bashar …” read the headline of an Edward Luttwak column in the neoconservative Wall Street Journal‘s editorial section, in which he argued that Damascus should be invited back into Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, even if that meant the “recognition of Syrian suzerainty” over its smaller neighbor.

“Let’s Be Friends with Syria,” was the title of a second article appearing in the right-wing National Review by contributing editor James Robbins on July 24, in which he, too, argued for rapprochement with Damascus as part of a “new international alignment in the Middle East” of Sunni-led states against Iran.

“Syria is the linchpin of the equation,” he wrote. “Bashar Assad should be offered the same deal as (Libyan leader) Muamar Khadaffi-basically stop doing things that annoy us, get rid of your (weapons of mass destruction) and missile programs, and you can be our friend. And it is good to be our friend, particularly if you are a dictator seeking to avoid regime change.”

That Syria will indeed prove pivotal to resolving the ongoing violence one way or another has become increasingly accepted in the United States over the past week as it became apparent that Israel cannot come close to achieving its initial war aim of dismantling Hezbollah as a fighting force.

Not only has the Shiite militia proved much stronger and more resourceful than either Israeli or U.S. analysts had anticipated, but its resistance and fighting spirit-coupled with the destructiveness of Israel’s offensive-have bolstered its popular support throughout the Arab world and even among some non-Shiite groups in Lebanon, according to virtually all independent reporting.

“Israel is losing this war,” according to retired U.S. Col. Ralph Peters, a staunch pro-Israel columnist and military expert with the neoconservative New York Post. “Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.”

To some hawks like Peters, as well as to Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the answer lies in a major Israeli ground invasion to clear out Hezbollah infrastructure and militants from southern Lebanon.

But the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, haunted by the disastrous Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, appears reluctant to consider this option-unless it can be combined with the insertion of a robust international force capable of confronting and disarming Hezbollah and that would enable Israel to retreat back behind its border. With Israel unwilling to attack Damascus and unable to crush Hezbollah-and the Lebanese Army both unable and unwilling to take it on-the only alternative appears to be the intervention of just such a force, for which Rice had been pushing before she traveled to the region July 23.

But with Washington unwilling to contribute troops, most analysts in the United States believe it unlikely that the United Nations or even NATO, which is already struggling to meet its current commitments in Afghanistan, could put together an operation that can do much more than what the existing, largely ineffective UN monitoring force (UNIFIL) already does, particularly if a still alive-and-kicking Hezbollah opposes its deployment.

“Another and larger UNIFIL, which would do nothing effective against Hezbollah while freezing the Israeli Army in its tracks, would be much worse than useless,” Luttwak opined.

In that context, the only power capable of curbing Hezbollah, if only by slowing or stopping the transit of equipment from Iran that it needs to sustain itself as a fighting force, is Syria. Indeed, as pointed out by Luttwak, Damascus, as Hezbollah’s main ally in Lebanon until it was forced to withdraw its 30,000 troops under international pressure last year, is likely to be the only power capable of persuading Hezbollah to disarm and “follow the political path.”

Even before Rice set out for the region, the administration appears to have understood Syria’s pivotal position in bringing the current crisis to an end. But what it has clearly been unable to decide is how best to get Damascus to cooperate.

Some believe that only sticks-and particularly harsh ones-will work.

Hardline neoconservatives, such as former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle and his colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute, have called for Washington to encourage Israel to carry its war against Hezbollah into Syria-presumably to persuade it to cut off Hezbollah and even, if possible, to realize a long-held dream of theirs-overthrowing Assad’s Ba’athist regime.

But that option appears to have been firmly rejected by Olmert, who like many others in Israel’s policy elite, concluded some time ago that Assad was preferable to anyone that might replace him, particularly in light of what has happened in Iraq since the United States ousted Saddam Hussein.

“Any political vacuum would almost surely be filled by the same sort of extreme Islamists now embittering the lives of Iraqis,” according to Aiman Mansour, an analyst at Israel’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies.

Others argue that Syria is in such a strong bargaining position that only carrots, and very big carrots at that, can induce its cooperation. This indeed was the message presented to Bush and Rice by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal at a White House meeting July 22, in which he argued that weaning Syria from its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah was critical to any regional effort-one that already includes U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt-to contain a far more dangerous Iran.

In this view, Washington made a major error last year in insisting, against the advice of the Sunni Arab states, on a precipitous withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and on Damascus’s diplomatic isolation. A number of commentators, including New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who strongly supported Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” now argue that Damascus must be recruited for the escalating confrontation with Iran.

“To me, the big strategic chess move is to try to split Syria off from Iran, and bring Damascus back into the Sunni Arab fold. That is the game-changer,” wrote Friedman last week. “What would be the Syrian price? I don’t know, but I sure think it would be worth finding out.”

Luttwak, who has long viewed Iran as the greatest threat faced by Israel and the United States, believes the price will be steep-including, of course, “recognition of Syrian suzerainty over Lebanon” and thus a major rollback of the Cedar Revolution-but worth it for the sake of Washington’s regional strategy. It may be “tremendously embarrassing” to the administration to agree to such a price, but there is little alternative, he noted.

Jim Lobe is the Washington, DC, bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a Right Web contributing writer.



Jim Lobe, "The Syria Option," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, July 28, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.

John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.

Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”

Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.

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.”

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.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.

The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.

In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.

For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.

The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”

The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.