According to Reports: U.S. Appears Naive as Syria Courts Iran

In his weekly Canadian Jewish News media analysis column “According to Reports,” Paul Michaels, CIC Director of Communications, looks at coverage of the United States making overtures to Iran.

In “Fanning the winds of war” (Winnipeg Free Press, March 2) Samuel Segev wrote about how, following the appointment of Robert Ford as the first U.S. ambassador to Syria in five years, the Obama administration was counting on Damascus to distance itself from Tehran and to stop arms transfers to Hezbollah.  However, neither is remotely likely to happen. As a result, the United States appears to be naïve about the influence it can yield.

Syrian President Bashar Assad “has no incentive to weaken his ties to Tehran,” Segev noted.  “On the contrary, he believe[s] his continued ties to Tehran would only increase his value and would increase the American incentives.”  (Ford will assume his posting following U.S. Senate confirmation, which seems assured. Yet, apart from his presence lending prestige to Assad’s regime, it’s not clear what the United States gains.)

Assad underscored this determination to stand by Iran by hosting a summit late last month with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah – a meeting that featured prominent denunciations of both U.S. Mideast policy and, of course, Israel.  Moreover, in response  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s calls on Damascus to free itself from Iran’s grip, Assad increased not only the quantity of Iranian arms to Hezbollah but also their quality, including advanced surface-to-surface missiles.

Segev quoted Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who spoke in Washington on Feb. 26: “Lebanon is a member of the UN and is also now a member of the UN Security Council. But Lebanon has also a ‘private’ army [Hezbollah], not subordinated to the state and this militia has an arsenal of 45,000 missiles and rockets that can hit targets anywhere in Israel. We cannot accept this.”

Israeli analysts have expressed surprise that the United States has been under some sort of illusion that Syria could be pried away from its alliance with Iran.  They point out that during previous negotiations with Israel, Syria never indicated its willingness to break this bond.  So why not take Syria at its word?

Assad is not the only one to assert his ties with Iran.  Damascus-based Hamas head Khaled Meshal has been moving closer to Iran.  Following the Damascus summit, he was Ahmadinejad’s guest of honour in Tehran  at a conference on ‘Islamic and National Solidarity with the Palestinian People,’  during which calls for Israel’s destruction figured prominently.  Hamas policy has consequently become even more extreme (Meshal, for instance, has renounced previous talk of a  long-term truce along the 1967 borders with Israel).

Into this toxic assembly of Assad, Meshal and Nasrallah – with Ahmadinejad and gang close at hand  – Ford plans to inject his presence.  And this comes at a time that the international community, including foremost the UN,  has all but given up on pursuing Assad as the prime suspect in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri,  the event that prompted the United States to pull its ambassador from Damascus.

Providing an ostensibly different perspective, in “Report: Syria willing to consider gradual approach to peace” (Ha’aretz, Mar. 2),  Akiva Eldar related how Gabrielle Rifkind, a “conflict resolution specialist” with the Oxford Research Group,  told him that according to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, whom she met in Damascus last December, Syria is serious about peace with Israel.  This would involve stages of Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for a “form of normalization” according to Rifkind.  This of course sounds very encouraging to western ears.

Yet on the crucial issue of Syria’s ties with Iran and Hezbollah Eldar wrote: “[Muallem] said that [Syria] will not negotiate any change in its relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas until after the Golan is returned. ‘Key questions, such as Syria’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and its policy to Iran , would only be answered after withdrawal,’ [Muallem] said.”

Only after Israeli withdrawal?

In short, enough said.

* * *

No to be missed – from the Economist’s Feb. 27 “Lexington” column “Is Barack Obama tough enough?” about Obama’s policy of relying on drone attacks against in Pakistan:

“For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai.”

Possibly related posts:

• According to Reports: Five Year Later, Hariri Murder Probe Goes Nowhere
• According to Reports: Does Iran Have Syria on a Short Leash?
• Israel responds to IAEA Reports Regarding Iran and Syria
• According to Reports: What’s Syria Up To In Lebanon?
• According to Reports: Iranian Actions Make Need for Sanctions More Urgent