With the peace process returning to a deep freeze, the Obama administration is
eyeing an opportunity to make headway with Syria.
The theory is nothing
new: If the regime in Damascus can make peace with Israel, end its sponsorship
of terrorist groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas, distance itself from Iran and
reorient itself toward the West, then the US would further isolate Teheran’s
rulers while giving a critical boost peace efforts around the region. To that
end, President Barack Obama confirmed the new US ambassador to Syria in a recess
appointment and reports have surfaced of a recent back channel opened between
the White House and Syrian officials.
While Team Obama may see such a
development as a panacea for what ails the Middle East, the reality is that
Syria will simply use the opportunity to play all sides against each other and
pocket concessions, while preserving the very status quo that Washington seeks
to alter.
The timing could not be any better for the Assad regime. The
special tribunal for Lebanon tasked with investigating the string of
assassinations in 2005, including that of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri,
is set to hand down indictments in a matter of weeks. Hizbullah will likely be
held responsible with the support and orders coming from Assad’s inner
circle.
Moreover, just last month US satellite imagery revealed a
compound in western Syria with hundreds of missile-shaped items, functionally
related to the North Korean-designed nuclear reactor destroyed in September
2007. For more than two years, Syria has blocked International Atomic Energy
Agency access to the remains of the al-Kibar nuclear site and similar
installations.
THE PATTERN is already familiar. Damascus makes tactical
choices for diplomatic engagement without making the strategic decision to
change its worldview in a manner consistent with a state seeking either peace or
a regional realignment. By engaging with Syria now, the US not only ensures that
Damascus will not be held to account, but it rewards its rogue behavior and
emboldens America’s enemies.
Nevertheless, even if one buys the
diplomatic snake oil Damascus is selling, there remains the problem of enforcing
any imagined peace deal. The international community and UNIFIL have utterly
failed to prevent the rearmament of Hizbullah, now stocked with more weapons
from Syria’s shelves than ever before. If the US remains incapable of stemming
the flow of insurgents across Syria’s border into Iraq, what makes the
administration believe it would be successful in enforcing an Assad commitment
to stop arming Hizbullah and cut support for Hamas?
The Assad regime always
benefits from the process of peace, but it is the process and not the peace that
interests Damascus. That is because Syria has no intention of trading alliances
or stopping its support for terrorists, since its importance rests solely on its
capacity to light fires around the region. Nor has there been any change in
Syrian rhetoric. President Bashar Assad still considers Hamas to be a legitimate
resistance group and preserving Hizbullah’s strength is a strategic imperative
for the regime whose first foreign policy priority is regaining and retaining
its domination over Lebanon.
Simply put, for Syria, the rewards for a
peace agreement acceptable in Jerusalem and Washington are far outweighed by the
benefits provided by its strategic and long-standing alignment with
Teheran.
Washington’s current flirtation with Damascus, then, only
provides benefits to Syria. This distraction points to an American foreign
policy in the Middle East that for two years has been built on a fundamental
misreading of the region. Indeed, it still rests upon the belief that the
problem is one of communication, rather than the decisions and strategic
calculations of states and actors such as Syria, Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas.
Obama came into office with engagement as his mantra, seeking to reset US
relations around the globe. One can only hope the White House finds the reset
button quickly when it comes to its current approach to the Middle
East.
The writer is director of policy of the Jewish Policy Center in
Washington and editor of inFOCUS Quarterly
.