What's the deal with Syria?
Peter Hoskin 12:13am
Jerusalem, Israel
Syria received top-billing in our meeting with the Israeli prime minster's spokesman – Mark Regev – in Jerusalem this morning. Sadly, though, he was tight-lipped about that intriguing Israeli strike on a Syrian nuclear facility. How much did the Americans know? “No comment”. Was there a risk of wider conflict? “No comment”. Wha...? “No comment”.
What he did say, however, was revealing. Israel is so keen to enter meaningful dialogue with Damascus – and to come to some sort of peace agreement – that they're going to avoid upsetting the apple-cart in public. As Regev put it: “If there is going to be progress [with Syria], then it won't be on the front pages.” Hence the radio silence on that nuclear facility.
It's an understandable position. After all, peace with Syria has clear security benefits for Israel (it would break up the Iranian-Syrian axis, and force the terrorist groups which currently congregate in Syria to retreat to Tehran – a much safer distance). But what's the incentive for Syria? According to another Israeli official, there are three factors motivating Damascus – expectation of an economic crisis in the next few years; an awareness of Israeli military superiority; and fear of US-led invasion. Peace with Israel could remedy all these worries. Or at least that's how the thinking goes.
Which leaves one final question – what chance peace? I was surprised by just how optimistic the Israelis are on this front. Here's what that official had to say: “Is [Syrian president, Bashar] al-Asad prepared to pay the price for distancing himself from Iran? The answer is 'yes'.”
Watch this space.
Previous
Comments
Tiberius
April 29th, 2008 9:50amHas Boy Assad been talking to Gaddafi about the pleasures of Western largesse?
David Lindsay
April 29th, 2008 3:56pmWe must learn the lesson of Iraq.
We have a greater strategic interest in shoring up the current secular regime in Syria, which might be nasty but is no threat to us, than in removing it, in which event it would be replaced with a regime which was at least as nasty and did pose a threat to us.
Those are the options. There is no Third Way. An Islamist state with a Mediterranean coastline, anyone? Mind you, there's already Turkey.
Syria is bad, but there are worse, including in the Middle East, where, bizarrely and disgracefully, we are particularly fond of them - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates...
Javier
April 30th, 2008 2:21amI am surprised Israel has not done this sooner. Since Syria has been practically begging for years for peace. Why now?
First they figured lets try to defeat Hezbollah first and then talk peace with Syria, since that will be a much stronger bargaining chip. This fantasy was cleared up in a hurry. Now they figure they will do the same thing but in reverse. First peace then destroy Hesbollah.
One thing that srikes me is “why now?” its possible that time is of the essence with Iran and with some possible nuclear reactor in Syria.
Its also possible that they predict a democratic president in the US elections and want to gain momentum while Bush is in office Since he will be much more anti Syrian.
Another possible explanation of the timing is that syrain Intellegence handed Israel Mughniaya as well as Meshaals top aid last week as a show of good fate and this convinced Israel to move.
Ruth
April 30th, 2008 10:58amThis is pure fantasy. Syrian needs Lebanon ciritcally while the Golan is more of a prestige object. Without Hisbollah no influence in Lebanon, meaning that their alliance with Iran stays firm. If Israel is stupid enough to give up the Golan under these circumstances, there will one more border to Iran.
How about Lebanon? Even the Baker Hamilton Iraq study group stoped short of selling out Lebanon to Syria.