US-Israeli Policies Not Yet Working with Damascus

The anti-diplomacy that has characterized American foreign policy for eight miserable years is coming to an end with the end of the Bush White House. But that does not mean that clear alternatives exist in complex places like Syria and its position in the Northern Belt of the Middle East. It is also true that when it comes to Syria, Israel is well ahead of the United States leadership in seeing opportunities. But Israel has been overly intimidated by the White House and its responses have been thus far clumsy and uncreative. Part of the reason for this is the massive ignorance of the inner workings of Syria that one finds in both Israel and the United States. I was told by a top former diplomat in Israel, who is the most knowledgeable person right now on Syria, that I know ten times more than the U.S. State Department about what makes the Syrian leadership tick. That frightened me, as I know very little. It is true that I have worked there for the last four years and that my Syrian partners and I have had some shocking successes in civil society programs that met with approval at the highest levels. But what is astounding is that billions of American tax dollars are not buying more savvy. Those dollars cannot buy savvy because the White House does not want savvy about Syria any more than it wanted savvy about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Anti-diplomacy reaches its tentacles into every aspect of our current foreign policy. It is not incompetence. It is simple aggression.

Here are two false dichotomies that must be dispensed with both in Israel and in the United States: 1) that a rapprochement with Syria must lead to a sell-out of Lebanese democrats and of Palestinians, and 2) that in order to deal with Syria they must be willing to cut off Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran— effectively all their major alliances. Both of these false dichotomies assume that there is one, and only one, reactionary voice in Syria, and that it is the voice of Syrian expansionism and unprincipled use of terror.

But I have learned this is only one voice inside the universe of Ba'athist leadership, and it is in fact a shadowy position that is despised by many others in leadership positions. The liberal Ba'athist voice at very high levels is looking to a normalization of relations in the region that will allow the Syrian economy to thrive, modernize and integrate in such a way that the people will want to stay with the current leadership. And the one way to get there is the return of the Golan and a just Palestinian settlement that will allow Syria to maintain its pan- Arab image. Secondly, the liberal voice despises the abuse of Lebanon, sees it as against Syria's long-term interests, but will also not allow an aggressive American posture to make Lebanon into an anti-Syrian base. When you are bargaining with a tough customer you always appeal to the liberal side of their internal debates, because your aim is to challenge them, to put them on the defensive, and to see whether the liberal or the militant voice comes out on top. It is the same with the issue of Syria's allies.

The liberal Syrian position is that Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are marriages of convenience, but that they are also vital to Syria's stability for the time being. The counter-offer from the West then is to challenge that liberal position and say, "Ok, I get that you will not cut off Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. But you can signal to us that you will be cooperating with your allies more and more only on defensive postures not aggressive ones, and we, correspondingly, will reduce our aggressive aims of isolation and regime change." In other words, tit for tat, steady confidence building that moderates Syria's role in the conflict. This we could sell in Damascus. Israel should be the first to send the signals, but I reiterate to my Israeli colleagues that if you try to cut a separate deal with Syria and stiff the Palestinians, it will backfire. President Bashar al-Assad cannot turn his back on the Palestinian cause without undermining his entire legitimacy. It is time then to face a comprehensive peace. If Israel has courage now with the Syrian track, and they inform the so-called pro-Israel lobby of Israel's clear intentions to normalize their northern border for the first time since the founding of the state, my experience in Washington suggests that a weak White House and Congress will sheepishly follow. This approach will strengthen the liberal Ba'athist voice, or at the very least force Syria to show its colors.