Want Middle East peace? Next stop: Damascus
The situation in Gaza is going to force the Obama Administration to focus on the Middle East earlier that might have been planned. Israeli ground troops in Gaza ensures that the conflict will continue past the inauguration. Calls for Obama to step in immediately to broker peace will be loud and persistent. My advice to the President-elect is to ignore them.
Getting Israelis and Palestinians to sit down together is a nearly impossible task in the best of times. In the heat of a conflict or even in the immediate aftermath, I would argue that any meaningful negotiations are unachievable. Patience is going to be key for Obama. At this point, there is no choice but to help end the current conflict and then let some time pass until the real work can begin again.
In the meantime, however, there is a great deal of work to be done to achieve peace in the Middle East that does not involve the Palestinian situation directly. For three decades, there has been slow but steady progress toward building a stable Middle East. The threat of a full-scale regional war has been diminishing as peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, less belligerent relations with Saudi Arabia and the other GCC countries and the regime change in Iraq have all significantly changed the geopolitical landscape for Israel. Putting aside the Palestinians (which, as you might be beginning to suspect, is the last piece of the puzzle in my mind), that leaves Israeli relations with Iran and Syria as the remaining major obstacles. Taking the next step through Damascus, rather than Tehran, seems obvious to me.
Trying to move the ball on Middle East peace through Iran isn’t going to work. The U.S. needs to talk directly to Iran for a variety of reasons, but improving regional stability isn’t one of them. Iran has no interest in improving the security situation for Israel. I have pushed for the U.S. to talk directly to Iran, but for different reasons. Quite simply, we need to talk to Iran to contain Iran, both by understanding our adversary better and by showing necessary allies such as the EU and Russia that we are making real diplomatic efforts.
Syria, however, is not Iran. The Assad regime does not have hegemonic aspirations to dominate the region. It is mainly interested in domestic stability and maintaining power. Also, Syria has a largely secular government that lacks the religious fervor that underpins so many of Iran’s actions. Perhaps most important, though, is that Assad seems ready to talk. Syria has already agreed to an informal process through Turkey to talk to Israel. Back in April 2008, Assad was even quoted as saying that peace talks could occur under a new U.S. President, long before anyone knew who that President would be. Although the events in Gaza have led Syria to pull back from the Turkey talks, the door still appears to be open to a committed Obama Administration effort.
Danielle Pletka argues in the New York Times that peace with Syria won’t work because the Assad regime needs to be a pariah state to survive. I disagree. Assad must have come to the conclusion that there might be a better way in order to accept the Turkey initiative. After all, there aren’t many benefits to being a farm club for the Axis of Evil. And having Iran as your only true ally cannot be comforting.
If Assad has been looking around for a model among his peer group on how to survive, I suspect he has focused a great deal on Qadaffi. Libya took the grand bargain with the U.S. and so far it seems to be working out pretty well for Qadaffi’s rule. He has maintained power and put an end to U.S. sanctions. Given that Libya was caught red-handed with a WMD program, Assad has to think that he can get an even better deal than Qadaffi. This doesn’t even take into account the fact that a peace agreement with Israel comes standard with huge economic benefits both in trade and foreign aid (see Egypt and Jordan).
Changing the U.S. relationship with Syria and brokering an Israel-Syria peace agreement will require a great deal of effort, but as Aaron David Miller points out in the Washington Post, it is easier than wading into the Palestinian conflict.
Miller also points out that engaging Syria further isolates Iran. Even more important than driving a wedge between the countries, starting a serious effort with Syria sends a strong message to Iran that it is not our only priority in the region. There has been so much focus on the U.S.-Iran relationship that I think it is important to remind Iran that we will not allow them to become the pivotal player in Middle East dynamics.
Engagement with Syria would also be an opportunity to show the Arab world that the U.S. has a new policy in the region. Taking steps to improve relations and address Syria’s regional concerns should resonate far more on the Arab street than any engagement with Iran. If Arab governments begin to view the U.S. as a more honest broker, an Israeli-Palestinian agreement seems a little more likely.
One thing that hasn’t been discussed much is that the Obama Administration is also going to have to establish its bilateral relationship with Israel. Any agenda that involves peace in the Middle East — and you have to assume that Obama’s does, just as it was on the wish list for each of the last five Administrations — will require Israeli arm-twisting. Working with Israel on an agreement with Syria would be a better place to start than a Palestinian deal since the issues are far less emotional and raw.
Finally, Syria offers the Obama Administration the opportunity to make a significant symbolic break from the Bush Administration. Before the Iraq War, conventional wisdom held that the neocons wanted to start in Baghdad, then hit Damascus en route to Tehran. Obama can follow the same road through the Middle East, heading to Syria next with diplomacy rather than military action.
Related posts:
I’d agree with most of what you’ve said, Mike, except that I’m not sure Syria poses a less “emotional” dilemma for Israel, and is hence an easier sell from Jerusalem’s perspective. If you’ve ever seen the proliferation of “The People are with the Golan” bumper stickers in Israel, or visited the area, you’ll understand that the obviously necessary territorial concession for an Israel-Syria peace deal is not an easy sell in Israel. I think it would be particularly hard at a time like this when the constant rocket attacks from Gaza make it clear that withdrawal from territory–whatever collateral benefits it may offer–does reduce Israel’s buffer zone against hostile neighbors.
You’re certainly right that now is not the time for an Obama administration to stake any credibility on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. You’re probably right that Syria is a better prospect, if only because there’s some kind of process in place, and willingness on the Syrian side to talk with Israel. But you’re probably wrong that the new US Administration should bark up this tree any time soon. Remember, as long as Palestinians are dying in Gaza, Assad is not free to make a deal. The best result might actually be if Israel wins back just a bit of deterrent credibility by not massively bungling the ground invasion, and can then take up serious negotiations with Syria six months or a year from now. That’s a huge maybe though.
Comment on January 5, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Matt, you’re right that any discussions about territory are going to be difficult in either negotiation. But I don’t believe that negotiations about the Golan Heights will touch the same raw emotions, for lack of a better word, that the right of return and the fate of Jerusalem do.
I also agree that direct talks between Syria and Israel will have to wait at least six months after Gaza calms down. But I do think that back channel discussions between the U.S. and Syria about what the U.S. is considering putting on the table can happen soon after Obama takes office. That will be a necessary precursor to Syria-Israel talks anyway.
Comment on January 5, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
[...] Landweber at Across the Aisle takes our minds off Gaza for a moment with this suggestion: “Putting aside the Palestinians, that leaves Israeli relations with Iran and Syria as the [...]
Pingback on January 6, 2009 @ 7:58 am
[...] Landweber at Across the Aisle takes our minds off Gaza for a moment with this suggestion: “Putting aside the Palestinians, that leaves Israeli relations with Iran and Syria as the [...]
Pingback on January 6, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Mike,
You certainly are correct – the new administration will have to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis far sooner that was anticipated. However I disagree with your suggestion for the new administration to ignore the pressure to broker peace. A cooling down period for both sides will be required prior to any meaningful peace talks (yes another cease fire agreement). My only hope is that a long-term peace is found. I do not favor one side or the other.
As President Elect Obama has stated about the economy – opportunity may be found in time of crisis. Perhaps what is needed is a different way (I am sure that it is not a new idea) to look at this 60 year old crisis.
Considering the history, there will be no lasting peace possible for the Palestinians if a peace proposal includes a boundary other than the original borders of Palestine. The Israelis will not agree to a proposal that does provide for their long-term security and sovereignty.
My thoughts on a long-term solution includes the creation of a new country – to be known a Judea (or another biblical name for this land prior to both Israel and Palestine). This democratic country would be made up both Jews and Palestinians. The political power-sharing agreement would have to achieve an equal balance between both parties. There would be many hurdles to overcome – both parties have their extremists and both would balk initially. This solution does provide the most important needs of both parties. Of course, they would have to learn to live and tolerate each other.
As to what countries to help broker this peace accord, the USA, Syria and Egypt together would provide critical leverage over both parties.
Comment on January 7, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
[...] on the Security Council. I’ve personally blogged about the need to reach out to Iran, Syria and Cuba, and PSA recently put out a statement about renewing the U.S.-Russia relationship. So I [...]
Pingback on March 19, 2009 @ 8:23 am