Why Syria Needs Peace
A member of Syria's cabinet told Al Jazeera TV that Israel has offered to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace treaty. The message, which Israel will neither confirm nor deny, was said to have been passed to Syria through Turkey, with whom both countries have diplomatic relations. (1)
Why make this public announcement? I believe that Damascus wants to stimulate support for the deal, both inside Israel and in the US, so that it cannot be withdrawn before Syria accepts it. The only obstacle to a deal in the recent past has been Israel's insistence on retaining a small strip of land near the Sea of Galilee. I think a compromise on this point is possible now, because the Syrians are anxious to settle the dispute with Israel.
Peace with Syria, the only country that fought Israel in 1967 and has not yet made a peace treaty, is in Israel's interest, provided that:
1. The Golan Heights are de-militarized, with neutral (perhaps American) troops stationed there to monitor compliance.
2. Syria blocks all supplies to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have a record of "giving away the store" in negotiating with Arabs, so they might not hold out for these important provisions.
This latest development comes at a time of great embarrassment to Syria. The US has a video provided by Israel taken inside the Syrian reactor before it was destroyed September 6, 2007, by the Israeli Air Force.
If Israeli intelligence was able to penetrate such a high-security installation as the North Korean-built Al Kibar reactor, Syrian security is not worth camel-dung. Moreover, Israeli bombers encountered no resistance whatsoever in their mission, either from anti-craft fire or Syrian MIG fighter planes. It is significant that Syria did not retaliate in any way, even though the bombing was a blatant act of war and violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement between the two nations. Syria even attended the December peace conference in Annapolis, in defiance of Iranian objections.
My conclusion from all these developments is that Syria has made a major change of course: from alliance with Iran and North Korea to detente with the United States and Israel. Why switch sides? One obvious reason is that Syria is surrounded by countries allied with the US: Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq.(2) Another is that President Bashar Assad, who honed his strategic skills practicing ophthalmology in London, realizes that Syria lacks a military force strong enough to confront Israel, let alone the United States.
Syria's erstwhile allies, North Korea and Iran, would not be much help in case of trouble. North Korea, which has no strategic or ideological interests in the Middle East, is now seeking rapprochement with the US. Iran, on the other hand, seems intent on provoking the US and Israel, even though it cannot defeat either one. Since most Syrians are Sunni, the alliance with Shiite Iran could pose internal problems for the regime, should major conflict erupt in the region. There is a real possibility that fighting in northwestern Iraq could spill across the border into Syria, which could destabilize the country. Once American forces leave, Iraq will be "up for grabs."
It is incontrovertible that Syria needs peace; the real question now is whether the Assad regime is willing to make the concessions necessary to achieve it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Washington Post, April 24, 2008.
(2) While Syria maintains cordial relations with the US-backed government of Iraq, Damascus does nothing to prevent the transit of insurgents and weapons through Syria into Iraq. Go figure.
Why make this public announcement? I believe that Damascus wants to stimulate support for the deal, both inside Israel and in the US, so that it cannot be withdrawn before Syria accepts it. The only obstacle to a deal in the recent past has been Israel's insistence on retaining a small strip of land near the Sea of Galilee. I think a compromise on this point is possible now, because the Syrians are anxious to settle the dispute with Israel.
Peace with Syria, the only country that fought Israel in 1967 and has not yet made a peace treaty, is in Israel's interest, provided that:
1. The Golan Heights are de-militarized, with neutral (perhaps American) troops stationed there to monitor compliance.
2. Syria blocks all supplies to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have a record of "giving away the store" in negotiating with Arabs, so they might not hold out for these important provisions.
This latest development comes at a time of great embarrassment to Syria. The US has a video provided by Israel taken inside the Syrian reactor before it was destroyed September 6, 2007, by the Israeli Air Force.
If Israeli intelligence was able to penetrate such a high-security installation as the North Korean-built Al Kibar reactor, Syrian security is not worth camel-dung. Moreover, Israeli bombers encountered no resistance whatsoever in their mission, either from anti-craft fire or Syrian MIG fighter planes. It is significant that Syria did not retaliate in any way, even though the bombing was a blatant act of war and violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement between the two nations. Syria even attended the December peace conference in Annapolis, in defiance of Iranian objections.
My conclusion from all these developments is that Syria has made a major change of course: from alliance with Iran and North Korea to detente with the United States and Israel. Why switch sides? One obvious reason is that Syria is surrounded by countries allied with the US: Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq.(2) Another is that President Bashar Assad, who honed his strategic skills practicing ophthalmology in London, realizes that Syria lacks a military force strong enough to confront Israel, let alone the United States.
Syria's erstwhile allies, North Korea and Iran, would not be much help in case of trouble. North Korea, which has no strategic or ideological interests in the Middle East, is now seeking rapprochement with the US. Iran, on the other hand, seems intent on provoking the US and Israel, even though it cannot defeat either one. Since most Syrians are Sunni, the alliance with Shiite Iran could pose internal problems for the regime, should major conflict erupt in the region. There is a real possibility that fighting in northwestern Iraq could spill across the border into Syria, which could destabilize the country. Once American forces leave, Iraq will be "up for grabs."
It is incontrovertible that Syria needs peace; the real question now is whether the Assad regime is willing to make the concessions necessary to achieve it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Washington Post, April 24, 2008.
(2) While Syria maintains cordial relations with the US-backed government of Iraq, Damascus does nothing to prevent the transit of insurgents and weapons through Syria into Iraq. Go figure.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:37 AM
2 comments
