No Deals with Syria over Lebanon - or Anywhere Else

No Deals with Syria over Lebanon – or Anywhere Else

Saturday, July 21st, 2007

Syria's stand on Lebanon does not cut the mustard in Paris. In Israel, Assad's demand that the entire Golan be returned and a third party (such as Turkey) act as a mediator has also been rebuffed.

Several reporters have written to ask whether an opening might be in the offing because of Cousseran's visit. It doesn't look like this is the case. All the Syrian officials I have spoken to in the last week have been of one opinion: the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Assad said that the next four months would be "fateful" for Syria. It will be a waiting game and the hatches have all been battened down. Lebanon is in the eye of the storm for Syria. Also, if the US or Israel is too take any sort of action against Iran, it is likely to come in the next half a year or so. I cannot believe the US or Israel will make any move against Iran, even if Iran acts rashly, but I have consistently underestimated the power of presidents to act against the interests of their countries and miscalculate Middle Eastern realities.

Here is a bit to confirm that Bush people are still gunning for Syria. From the MEPGS newsbrief (excerpts) by way of FLC

At a recent "Deputies"meeting it was proposed that airlines servicing Damascus be barred from entering the US market. The reasoning was that Syria should be punished for allowing Jihadists from the Arab world to use Damascus as a gateway to Iraq. This proposal was shelved only after forceful arguments were made by State Department experts, who pointed out that a number of European airlines regularly fly in and out of Damascus…"

Congress is also preparing to pass a bipartisan anti-Syria bill aimed at boosting support for Lebanon's March 14 government and stiffening its resolve not to cede any authority to the opposition, which would be seen as a compromise with Syria.

France tells Syria, Iran : Quit betting on deal over Lebanon
Saturday, 21 July, 2007. Ya Lubnan

French envoy Jean-Claude Cousseran's visit to Damascus and Iran was aimed at restating France's well-known Mideast policy, and did not involve any shift regarding Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government, sources close to the French Foreign Ministry told Naharnet.

Jean-Claude%20Cousseran%20in%20syria.jpg

The sources said the French Foreign Ministry, under instructions from the Elysee Palace, had authorized Cousseran to inform Syria of the need to quit betting on external powers to make a "deal" at Lebanon's expense.

The French sources confirmed that Cousseran conveyed a "harsh warning" to each of Syria's Vice President Farouk Sharaa and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem concerning the need to deal "positively" with French and Arab efforts aimed at building stability in Lebanon.

They stressed that Cousseran was "very honest and clear" with the Syrian leadership, adding that he has relayed France's firm stance which gave Syria what they said was the "last chance" toward changing its behavior in Lebanon.

Cousseran's visit to Damascus earlier this week represented the first such contact between Syria and France since President Nicolas Sarkozy took office last month and the highest-level visit by a French official to Syria in almost two years.

The French sources told Naharnet that Cousseran had also informed Syrian officials that such visits will not take place in the future unless France sees "tangible" changes in Syria's behavior in Lebanon and the region.

The French Foreign Ministry was eager to inform the Syrian leadership, through its envoy, of France's "unyielding" policy, the sources said.

They said Cousseran had handed over to the foreign ministry a report on the outcome of his July 11 visit to Tehran.

According to the report, the sources said, Cousseran's talks in Tehran were "affected" by remarks made by Sarkozy on Hezbollah.

Cousseran said in his report that the Iranians do not share France's view on Lebanon, adding that he informed officials in Tehran that Paris was "by no means" considerding to interfere in the Lebanese presidential elections nor in shaping up the new government.

The sources said the Iranian leadership has expressed solidarity with the Syrian regime regarding rejecting the formation of any Lebanon government that opposes Syria.

Cousseran said Iran neither desires a political vacuum in Lebanon nor the crisis to continue, but at the same time Tehran would not consider the two issues as redline.

Cousseran emphasized that Iran deems itself a "major regional power;" and that it deals with Lebanon on that basis as well as from a strategic angle which takes into account Hezbollah's demographic, economic and political positions.

The daily An Nahar on Friday also quoted French Foreign Ministry spokesman David Martinon as saying Cousseran's visit to Damascus was of "diplomatic, not political nature."

Sources: Naharnet, Ya Libnan

Lang: It is unlikely that Assad has the USA in mind as an "honest broker": Col. Pat Lang commenting on a DailyStar story, here. (Via FLC)

"Back to the Debate on Syria,"
By: Alon Ben-Meir
16 July 2007

For a number of years, I have been advocating the importance of constructively engaging Syria, not only to improve the prospects for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, but to substantially contribute to the stability of the Middle East. With security conditions throughout the region deteriorating daily, especially in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq, Damascus can play a significant role in stemming the tide of violence. This is why it is sadly ironic that the Bush administration, which is battling to stabilize the situation especially in Iraq, remains blind to the fact that a change of strategy toward Syria is critical to tilting the region's political and security dynamic toward at the very least a modicum of peace and security.

One argument against a change of policy toward Damascus is that the United States would be seen as rewarding extremism and bad behavior. Proponents of this view, miss the point: Policy must, in the final analysis, be determined by the desired outcome. If moderation and cooperation are what the administration seeks from Syria and the present Bush's policy of regime change in Damascus has obviously failed, is now not the very moment to consider new policy options?

Another argument against changing policy is that dealing with Syria would be nothing less than appeasement and that the United States might as well submit to terrorism. I think the reality is the exact opposite: By not changing course, America is actually giving in to terrorism…..

Please follow and like us:

Comments (10)

Ghassan said:

I would like to know two things:
1. What does the people in Syria think?
2. What is the Syrian administration (or the parrots) think? How far do they think that the world will tolerate their mischief behavior?

July 21st, 2007, 3:10 pm

ausamaa said:

“No Deals with Syria over Lebanon – or Anywhere Else”

(Sources: Naharnet, Ya Libnan)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

July 21st, 2007, 3:50 pm

Seeking the Truth said:

Akbar Palace states

As far as why there isn’t democracy, I keep repeating myself here, so I’ll link to an article that touches on the subject.

After all, the entire regime is premised on the animosity and conflict with Israel. If there is no conflict with Israel there will be no minority Alawite regime ruling Syria either.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3427399,00.html

Totalitarian regimes must have an external enemy Habibi.

Well Akbar, how about the Jordanian and the Egyptian regimes, they have a peace treaty with Israel, and at the same time remain kind of totalitarian!

July 21st, 2007, 7:07 pm

why-discuss said:

It looks like an arms wrestling between Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hezbollah and the US-EU-Lebanese government-Fath
It can only lead to more violence as I don’t see Iran yielding to any of the threats, military from the US and economically from the EU. Iran has bore an 8 years war without any support, while the EU and the US were helping Saddam Hussein by selling weapons and doing business: not easy to trust the EU or the US after that. Ultimately Iran won the war to the displease of these countries who found themselves fighting against their ex-friend Saddam to protect another dearer friend, Kuwait. Iran feels (and is) the only military regional force, reinforced by the demise of its two ennemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. No way to ignore its power to build and to destroy.

July 21st, 2007, 8:43 pm

Bakri said:

WHY DISCUSS,99% of Iraqi weapons are not of american origin,but most of iranian weapons are and during the same war the iranian regime of khomaini did get some weapons from Israel with Reagan administration’s approval.

July 21st, 2007, 9:13 pm

Bilal said:

To Ghassan,

The people in Syria totally back Bashar as per the result of the recent referendum.. whoever does not totally agree will become roommate with Michel Kilo & others. Unfortunately there is no way to hear their voices with the present dictator we have. As for the Syrian officials believe me they are totally silent. They cannot dare be otherwise.
I do not agree that the next four months will be fateful for Syria. It will be fateful just for Bashar & Co. Syria should be and will be exempted from the pressure as the International community has learned from Iraq to exempt the people from the pressure on the regime.

July 21st, 2007, 9:23 pm

OK. Next?

July 21st, 2007, 9:43 pm

Joshua said:

The notion that the legitimacy of the Syrian regime rests of Israel’s continued occupation of the Golan is frequently invoked by Israelis and defenders of its continued occupation of the Heights. Here is one exquisite rendition of this clunker.

As far as why there isn’t democracy, I keep repeating myself… The entire regime is premised on the animosity and conflict with Israel. If there is no conflict with Israel there will be no minority Alawite regime ruling Syria either.

If Israelis actually wanted democracy in Syria and believed their own bunkum about the swift collapse of the Alawite regime following the return of the Golan, they would hand it over forthwith. Democracy would then spring up in Syria and all would be well in the neighborhood.

Of course they don’t believe their own silliness. It is but another justification to hang on to occupied land.

More importantly, the legitimacy of the Syrian regime does not hang on the existence of an Israeli enemy. It is based on the fact that most Syrians do not trust themselves to create something different that would offer comparable tolerance and stability.

They look at the ethnic, political, and confessional conflict in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine/Israel and say no thanks. I had dinner with a 26 year old Syrian this evening who explained that Syrians of his generation are star struck by the president and think he is great. Older Syrians are more cynical, but they too value it.

Israelis may think they are the center of the Middle East universe and actually rendering a service to Syrians by hanging on to their land; this is based on ignorance.

July 21st, 2007, 10:12 pm

I believe than the return of the Golan would legitimize even more Bashar and strentghen his regime in the arab world. The Israeli would do that only if they are sure Syria will renounce to the alliances with the resistance bloc: Palestinians and Iranians.
We know Bashar won’t throw himself into the unpredictable arms of the US and its allies: Iran is a strong and reliable ally and Syria can play the broker between the Sunni and Shia blocs in the Shia-Sunni rifts: a very profitable role worth the Golan. In addition Iran is a rich country, closeby, it has gaz, oil, car manufactures, weapon factories, it is already selling electricity to Iraq, why would Bashar renounce to that? Iraq will be ultimately ruled by Shias ( say Colin Powell) and Syria will be even more reinforced having welcomed 1.5 millions iraqis when the US agreed to take 7,000 …. Time is running out for the US in the region.

July 22nd, 2007, 12:03 am

George Ajjan said:

The airline boycott is very far-fetched. BMED, a British Airways subsidiary, flies not only to Damascus but also to Tehran!

July 22nd, 2007, 12:47 am