Syria wants to have its say, but US is determined not to listen

[bishop]

article

WHEN Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, meets European and Arab foreign ministers in Rome on Wednesday, one key minister from the region will be missing. Syria, the main Arab backer of Hezbollah, has not been invited to the emergency talks, but yesterday it made clear that it has plenty to say — and wants a role in any plan to end the fighting. “Syria is ready for dialogue with the US based on respect and mutual interests,” Faisal al-Meqdad, an influential Deputy Foreign Minister, said in an interview yesterday. He offered to “facilitate communication” with Hezbollah, but insisted that Damascus could not speak for the militant group which, he said, made its own decisions. His offer was swiftly rebuffed by John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, who said it was “hard to see” benefits from a Syria-US dialogue. In his weekend radio address President Bush specifically named Syria and Iran as the two main backers of Hezbollah terrorists who, he said, were responsible for the crisis. Nevertheless, the Syrian minister’s remarks may be at the centre of the talks in Rome. America wants its Arab allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, to put pressure on Syria to stop Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and to disarm. The three Sunni Arab governments certainly want an end to the fighting, which they fear has immeasurably increased Iranian and Shia influence in the region and which is in danger of undermining the standing of pro-Western Arab governments. The Saudis sent a senior official to Damascus before the Israeli attacks on Lebanon to tell Damascus — and Hezbollah — “not to try to start anything”, according to a senior Arab source. They know that Syria is the only country able to restrain the pro-Iranian militants. So do the Americans. Syria clearly sees an opportunity in the crisis. It has linked its offer to help with a demand for a settlement that would see Israel releasing prisoners and withdrawing from Shebaa Farms, an area on the Lebanese border that Lebanon claims as its territory. Damascus, though, has two longer-term aims: an end to Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, territory captured from Syria in 1967, and a tacit agreement that the US and the West will end their confrontation with President Bashar al-Assad’s government over its alleged involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister. Damascus cannot seriously expect any promise by the US or UN to draw a line under the Hariri affair, which has come close to destabilising the Assad Government; but it clearly hopes that pressure on Damascus from the West and from fellow Arab governments will be lifted if it can deliver a ceasefire by Hezbollah. For her part, Dr Rice needs an intermediary with Hezbollah, and will use the talks in Rome to try to create a powerful Arab political front to rein in the militants. The three pro-Western governments have much to lose from the fighting. They, too, would welcome a Syrian effort to defuse the tension. The big question is, can Syria deliver? And can any restraint be forced on Hezbollah without Iran? Washington hopes that its allies in the region — specifically Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt — fear the spread of Islamic militancy more than the threat from Israel. According to White House officials last night, the broad US strategy in its apprach to the Israel-Hezbollah crisis is to build an “umbrella” of Arab nations against Hezbollah, and by extension the spectre of Shia militancy across the region formented by Iran. In the short term this invloves trying to drive a wedge between Syria, a broadly Sunni nation, and Iran, which is mostly Shia. The two countries have entered into an alliance of convenience against the US in Iraq and against Israel over Lebanon. President Bush views the current crisis as an opportunity to combat Islamic terrorism in the Middle East by getting Arab allies to unite against Iran. Fundamentally, the strategy that will be pursued by Dr Rice this week will be part of a broader strategy to transform the Middle East by pitting mod- erate Sunni Arabs against Shia militancy. Critics say that the strategy is fraught with risks, not least the prospect of intensifying Sunni-Shia hatred across the broader Middle East. Hatred of the US among Sunnis since the US invasion of Iraq is also high, as one result of the war has been the installation of a Shia-dominated Government in Baghdad.

always amazing seeing how this administration conducts its "diplomacy". interestingly enough, the countries that they spend all their energy demonizing are the same ones that they always refuse to talk with. what's that old saying again? *keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.*

even nearing in on 8 years in power, these people are total amateurs.


anyways, something more interesting than the administration's continuous examples of incompetence was the article's conjecture about trying to end the syrian-iranian alliance of convenience. syria and iran have always had a bit of a tenuous relationship, and only faced with the recent threat of u.s. attack, syria reached out to iran and created a defense pact with them. the only things linking these countries seems to be their disdain for israel and the u.s... (with professional diplomacy and statesmanship that can always change of course.)


and here's a supporting article on syrian/iranian relations - historical and in the present context..

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11122/


is it possible to end this alliance of convenience if the dolts in the administration refuse to talk to syria?

[Mia]

This makes me so mad I didn't even finish reading the article yet (I will, but I have to spew first)

1) We lump Syria in with Iran as equal supporters and controllers of Hezbollah

2) We pressure Syria to tell Hezbollah what to do

3) We pressure Syria to do everything we want in that region and blame it for things it can't even control

But we won't talk to them.

Syria has bent over backwards accomodating the Syrian Accountability Act, which I think was BS to begin with, and now we spit on them.

Does that make ANY sense at all?

Fucking retards. Syria could actually be an ally. No one believes this, but the only actual thing we have against them and they us is Israel.

The government is not radical Islam, in fact radical Islam is a bigger threat to them than us.

OK, back on topic. They are KEY in the region and we won't talk to them.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

[Mia]

Nevertheless, the Syrian minister’s remarks may be at the centre of the talks in Rome. America wants its Arab allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, to put pressure on Syria to stop Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and to disarm.

Bishop, I am not speaking to PH. Will you tell him I want thus and such?

Is this kindergarden?

Or further determination to demonize Syria - they want to be helpful, we won't let them, we can keep them as one of our top 5 enemies.

specifically Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt — fear the spread of Islamic militancy more than the threat from Israel.

3 of the most restrictive regimes?

Fundamentally, the strategy that will be pursued by Dr Rice this week will be part of a broader strategy to transform the Middle East by pitting mod- erate Sunni Arabs against Shia militancy.

Quite possbily the stupidist idea proposed by this administration.

Syria and Lebanon will make peace with Israel if fair arrangements are worked out over territory.

Iran would be left on its own if it wanted to continue to stay anti-Israel.

But we have to go along with the greed of Israel and do things the harder way, the wrong way, and tear up the whole region instead.

Makes me sick.

We could support two countries in their struggle toward democracy - Assad is neither Sunni nor shia extreme.

If the Syrian regime is tumbled, the Sunni majority would elect an intolerant, more fundamentalist one.

Why do we see this as being toward our benifit? It wouldn't be MORE friendly to us or Israel.

*shakes head in confusion*

[bishop]

you're right - syria is definitely the key player here.. without their active support the situation cannot improve imo.

the amazing thing is that syria helped us quite a lot after 9/11 (i.e. they have been an ally in the recent past).. they gave us intel, saving american lives, about a planned al qaeda attack on the u.s. fleet in bahrain.. they gave us intel to help arrest mohammed haydar zammar (an al qaeda recruiter)..

from the state department:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt...html/19988.htm

The Government of Syria has cooperated significantly with the United States and other foreign governments against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations and individuals. It also has discouraged any signs of public support for al-Qaida, including in the media and at mosques.

certainly, despite our current disagreements, any professional statesman/diplomat would be engaging the syrians in hopes of winning favorable compromises.

Quote by: mia 3 of the most restrictive regimes?

well, what regime in the middle east isn't restrictive? personally, these people have no history/experience with democracy and have a proven inability to compromise and coexist (including sunnis and shia).. at the most, we should just push for the most basic reforms, such as freedom of speech and of the media, and greater human rights.. that will hopefully initiate much needed dialogue amongst muslims and could lead to them finally addressing their own problems - i.e. "getting their house in order".

from a different perspective, egypt, jordan and saudi arabia are all sunni countries who are worried about iran's growing influence in middle eastern affairs (rightly so, imo).. the fact that iran's developing nukes is just additional pause for concern..

still, if we can't even talk to syria, i doubt much of anything positive will happen.. bush is awfully immature when it comes to diplomacy. it seems that he simply refuses to talk with people/regimes that he doesn't like - and will only talk with friends/allies.. the little priss doesn't want to get his hands dirty, doing the difficult but necessary job of talking to people/regimes that he doesn't like..

[The Second Law]

Oh, yeah, Syria's a great country, what with how they support terror groups who vow to destroy our allies and engage in the act of doing so. Them's some good people right there.

It looks to me like they want to talk because they don't like Israel pounding Hezbollah in the ass. It hurts. They ("we", since this conflict is pretty much America v. Syria and Iran by proxy) have got their boot on Hezbollah's neck, and now they're crying for mercy.

Too bad. The only way to defeat terrorism is to vanquish it. "Peace is not achieved when everyone stops shooting; it is achieved when the good guys win." The time for talk will be when they're about to surrender, but until then, we should be doubling the weight while they're weak.

Quote by: Mia Syria and Lebanon will make peace with Israel if fair arrangements are worked out over territory.

Syria and Lebanon will make peace with Israel when Hezbollah has been destroyed. Until then, you're just giving land to the terrorists, rewarding it, and that's no way to solve the problem.

--Second

[bishop]

thanks for highlighting the kind of amateurish thinking that rules in the bush administration..

nobody's saying that syria's some great country, but it speaks volumes how you summarily ignore the assistance they gave us (without hesitation) after 9/11... assistance that saved american lives in fact.

we lose nothing by acting like professionals and adults, and talking with the syrians.

[The Second Law]

I summarily ignored their aid because it has nothing to do with the current situation. The aid could have been buddy-buddy money to get us to remember it for later times like now; it could have also been genuine aid for which I will thank them. Either way, though, we don't need to be putting up with any of their terrorism shit, regardless of how much money they donated to starving kids in Africa.

And we have plenty of time to lose by talking to Syria. They've made it known that they want not only a cease-fire, but also land and Israel's release of prisoners. I'm quite glad that the administration has stood so firmly against the idea of dealing with terrorists. Secretary Rice has already said that there will be no solution to the conflict until Hezbollah is destroyed. Since Syria has no intention of furthering this end, they have no reason to come to talks discussing it.

--Second

[Mia]

certainly, despite our current disagreements, any professional statesman/diplomat would be engaging the syrians in hopes of winning favorable compromises.

Well, see there is that compromise word. We don't want to do that. We don't want to talk about why Syria supports Hezbollah to begin with. We don't want to talk about their interests. Golan Heights, etc. We want our way only. And so we're going the bully route yet again. Because it's working soooooo well so far.

the amazing thing is that syria helped us quite a lot after 9/11 (i.e. they have been an ally in the recent past).. they gave us intel, saving american lives, about a planned al qaeda attack on the u.s. fleet in bahrain.. they gave us intel to help arrest mohammed haydar zammar (an al qaeda recruiter).

.

It's not amazing at all. al qaeda types are Syria's worst enemy. It is a capital crime to be a member of or associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, kind-of the father or brother of al qaeda.

Assad's regime toppled Sunni fundamentalists and has had to suppress them ever since.

Our only beef with them is Israel, but our administration acts like they are a big enemy to us.

If you meant amazing that we don't give them any credit for what you quoted above, then I wholeheartedly agree.

All we do is bitch that they won't do everything we want w/o ever a mumble about their own interests.

And Syria doesn't threaten anybody, is working toward democracy and free markets...it has chosen to stand firm on Golan Heights and Palestinian issues and so are demonized.

We have an opportunity here to have good relations with a key player and address some of the issues that need to be in the Israel/Palestine issue and we're just taking a pass.

[The Second Law]

Quote by: Mia We have an opportunity here to have good relations with a key player and address some of the issues that need to be in the Israel/Palestine issue and we're just taking a pass.

At what cost would these good relations come? We know what Syria wants, and it's nothing we'd ever be willing to give, at least until Hezbollah's gone. We're taking a pass because it wouldn't be worth our time; nothing would get resolved.

--Second

[Mia]

It looks to me like they want to talk because they don't like Israel pounding Hezbollah in the ass. It hurts. They ("we", since this conflict is pretty much America v. Syria and Iran by proxy) have got their boot on Hezbollah's neck, and now they're crying for mercy.

I don't see them crying mercy. I see them saying 'you want us to call Hezbollah off? Let's chat about why they are on to begin with.

Syria is at war with Israel. I do not see that as being terrorist.

Too bad. The only way to defeat terrorism is to vanquish it. "Peace is not achieved when everyone stops shooting; it is achieved when the good guys win."

Not so easy to define who the terrorists are strictly in that region. And who the good guys are. I think Syria has a right to fight for the Golan Heights and Israel is criminal in occupying it.

Syria and Lebanon will make peace with Israel when Hezbollah has been destroyed. Until then, you're just giving land to the terrorists, rewarding it, and that's no way to solve the problem.

I know. When we give Israel everything it wants and defeat all detractors, then peace will reign.

Quote by: The Second Law At what cost would these good relations come? We know what Syria wants, and it's nothing we'd ever be willing to give, at least until Hezbollah's gone. We're taking a pass because it wouldn't be worth our time; nothing would get resolved. --Second

What does Syria want that is unreasonable?

Why should they retreat and trust us to give anything? All the West has ever done is invade and occupy. They are holding onto the last scrap of their land.

[bishop]

Quote by: The Second Law I summarily ignored their aid because it has nothing to do with the current situation.

you rant about their support for terrorism, yet ignore cases where they've helped us, and saved american lives in the process.. gotta love people who follow the administration's word in lockstep.

Quote by: The Second Law We're taking a pass because it wouldn't be worth our time; nothing would get resolved.

time after time, the administration (supposed by savage, bloodthirsty bushbots) willingly chooses to make situations worse and the inevitability of war greater - instead of acting like professionals and engaging themselves in statesmanship and diplomacy so that these issues do not grow into wars.

to simply say that nothing would get resolved is just another highlight of the retarded thinking of this administration.. you don't know if anything can be resolved until you try.. instead, you assume that nothing can be accomplished - meaning that war becomes the only option because diplomacy can't work. really deep thinking right there..

[Mia]

you rant about their support for terrorism, yet ignore cases where they've helped us, and saved american lives in the process.. gotta love people who follow the administration's word in lockstep.

I don't think he understood the part about helping us with terrorists. He said something about African aid.

But then, many believe their support of Hezbollah is the same thing as being al-qaeda.

I don't say Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorists. I just think there is a difference between Israel-resistance groups and world-wide terror groups.

[bishop]

agreed... the muslim-israel conflict is decades old and anyone with some intelligence should be able to see it as such.

really, this all boils down to professionalism vs. amateurism..

for the life of me, i don't understand why they refuse to talk to EVERY regime that they have a problem with. that's like some little brat not liking what mom's saying, so they stick their fingers in their ears and yell "nya nya nay, can't hear you!"...

[Mia]

Something i forgot to mention here. KSA actually spawned the 9/11 terrorists. They preach hatred of America not only in their own schools, but in Islamic schools all over the US, but we are buddies. We will talk to them.

But not to countries resisting Israel's occupation.

*confused*

[Intense_Debate]

the real issue is---actions speak louder than words. There is no need to talk to the Iranians and Syrians because they already know what they have to do: Quit inciting Hez Bollah to commit murder for the sake of allah, quit giving money, and weapons to Hez Bollah, and (the cherry on top) release the Israeli soldiers.

There is no need for discussion of this matter. There is no need to debate this matter. They simply need to act.

These people should not be appeased. Historically speaking, you cannot negotiate with folks like Bashir Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In one case you have a militant psychopath (Iran), and the other a puppet to the militants within his country (Syria).

When they do what is demanded of them and show a glimpse of rational thought, then we can begin thinking about talking to them.