March 14th

Syrians Silent and Disappointed but Ready to Put Lebanon Behind Them
By Joshua Landis in Damascus, Monday 8 June 2009

The fairly resounding loss for Hizbullah and Aoun comes as a shock to many Syrians, who having been following the polls in Lebanon carefully. They are in the dumps. This morning I received my first calls from friends to tell me the “bad news.” I have spoken to many reporters since, including to the charming and resourceful Anita McNaught from al-Jazeera International, who has been covering Syria. They are having a hard time of it getting a Syrian story. Syrian officials are not going on air about the elections on the wise assumption that it is better to stay out of the mix. Syrian officials have been silent on Lebanon for weeks, unlike Americans – an irony that must really tick them off given how insistent American officials have been about the need for smooth elections untainted by foreign meddling.

There is considerable teeth gnashing and dratting going on. For the ordinary Syrian, the excitement is largely about the drama that is Lebanon. As one young man said to a friend yesterday. The Lebanese love drama too much. But of course, Syrians are captivated by it as well. The Lebanese are masters of the sound bite and political pose. Without much politics taking place in Syria, it is all too easy to get one’s political fix by watching the Lebanese parliament. As one Syria reporter confessed, “We all know the Lebanese politicians much better than our own.”

My mother-in-law is particularly down cast. She has always been a Nasrallah devotee. She called me in the States during the 2006 Israeli bombing of South Lebanon to tell me how she would go volunteer for Hizbullah if she weren’t so old and overweight! She is in the village with the rest of my Syrian family. The pro-Hizbullah sentiment in the coastal mountains is very strong indeed. In Damascus, sentiments vary. Many people here have Lebanese branches of the family so one must poke around delicately before drawing conclusions about their true sentiments. All the same, most Syrians are pro-Aoun-Hizbullah. The tension between Lebanon and Syria over the last 5 years has inflamed national sentiment and produced greater unity on Lebanon issues than used to be the case. Among the taxi-driver segment, there is less interest. At least three drivers have responded to my Lebanon questions in the last few days with emphatic denials that they care. “The Lebanese can do what they want and it makes not a fig of difference to Syria,” they will protest. “They can live their lives and we will live ours.” But later in the conversation they may start to praise the resistance or explain that Aoun was against Syria when Syria was occupying Lebanon but is now with us, claiming that as soon as Syria quit Lebanon, he recognized that Lebanon needs Syria and that they belong in the same ranks against Israel and America. Many Syrian Christians are gratified by Aoun’s turn toward Syria because it provides them with a strong political figure who is not a Geagea or Jemayyal. It shows that even Lebanese Christians stand with Syria. They are not alone.

The newspaper, al-Watan, runs a large headline reading: “Political Money Wins in Lebanon.”

So what does this mean for policy? Much depends on whether March 14 tries to rewrite Doha and get rid of the blocking third in Lebanon’s cabinet, as Hariri said he would do. He may feel obliged to carry through with this, or at the very least, raise it as his initial battle cry, because his win was more substantial than expected. My hunch is that any attempt to undo Doha will threaten to take Lebanon back to the paralysis and dark days of the pre-Doha era and will thus be abandoned. There is no stomach for such extremism today — not in Washington, Riyadh, or in Damascus or Tehran. The Obama era has changed things and Syria is waiting to move ahead with the US.

In many respects, Syria-US relations have been on hold, awaiting the outcome of the June 7 elections. Now that elections are over business can resume. The US, gratified at their results, can send Mitchell to Damascus as a sign of magnanimity in victory. Washington will be in a stronger position, but ironically, Damascus too may feel a certain relief in the very highest halls of the foreign ministry. It has avoided the complications of an Hizbullah win, which could have strained already bad relations with the US even further. The Lebanon situation will take some of the oomph out of Syrian hardliners, who may believe that Syria is winning the long term struggle for Arab public opinion and can afford to play hardball with Washington.

A dovish lobby is also taking root in Damascus. As more and more Syrians begin to make money due to of the liberalization process, they develop a keener taste for the joys and promise of wealth. Equally, they gain a keener awareness of the price tag that comes attached to “resistance.” In this they are not unlike the Lebanese. A significant internal lobby for getting rid of the sanctions is building in Syria. All the same, Syria is a long way from accepting to abandon the Golan to Israel. Even those who feel the real urgency to move ahead economically are not prepared to concede the Golan. It is a bind that we all keep returning to.

The elections should raise the probability that Mitchell comes to Damascus this coming week. They will also raise the probability of the US returning an Ambassador to Damascus in the near future. The Lebanon hurtle has been crossed to Washington’s satisfaction. If a coalition government can be formed in Lebanon without too much grandstanding and escalation of threats, Lebanon should no longer be an impediment to improving US-Syrian relations.

[end]

Here is what Qifa Nabki writes about the likely political outcome in Lebanon:

Qifa Nabki Says:

Most commonly encountered scenario is that M14 will offer the following deal:

In a 30 member cabinet, they will give March 8 ten seats, and two or three seats to the President, reserving the remaining 17-18 for themselves.

This means that the opposition would not have a veto, but that the president could step in to put the brakes on, should things get out of control. Syria might be okay with that scenario, provided their links to Suleiman are still solid.

http://qifanabki.com/ is updating on the election today in Beirut.

Buses of Lebanese living in Syria set out for Beirut this morning. Syrians are following the elections closely and with baited breath.

Riyadh and Washington have both warned Lebanese voters on the eve of elections that a vote for Aoun will cost them foreign aid that may drive Lebanon into economic crisis. Meanwhile, U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman said, “We want this election to take place in peace with no threats.” … Charming.

Asharq Alawsat’s Rashed, a voice close to the Saudi government, writes that if the opposition wins in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia won’t help Lebanon anymore.

Feltman said it would be naïve for some to think that the outcome of the Lebanese parliamentary elections won’t affect U.S. policy in Lebanon.

In an joint interview with both dailies An-Nahar and al-Hayat on Saturday, Feltman said: “The election’s outcome will naturally affect world’s stance towards the new Lebanese government and the manner in which the United States and Congress deal with Lebanon.”

“I believe the Lebanese are smart enough to understand that there will be an effect. When Hizbullah claims that there won’t be any effect, when it claims that it is not interested in the matter, I tend to believe that the Lebanese with their intelligence would think otherwise,” Feltman said.

He went on to indirectly criticizing Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun saying: “one of your politicians is proposing that Christians shouldn’t depend on the United States. I hope the Lebanese had accurately listened to president’s [Barack Obama] speech that specifically pointed to the widest Christian religious minority in Lebanon, the Maronites. The president spoke about the need for respecting all peoples in the region including minorities…I hope the Lebanese would ask themselves: do we want to be on the side of the international community and close to the stances that president Obama made? I hope they would say yes.”

“We want this election to take place in peace with no threats or violence,” U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman said.

Paul Salem of Carnegie in the LA Times:

…LAT: How much would this reduction really affect Lebanon?

Salem: It’s true that the aid to the Lebanese military is perhaps less than what Lebanon wanted. I think they have delivered $250 million over the past three years with more in the pipeline, but like you said that isn’t a lot.

But what’s important is that the Lebanese army has aligned itself with the West in terms of training and equipment. If this kind of aid is no longer feasible, March 8 could turn to Iran, as [Hezbollah’s Sheik Hassan] Nasrallah has said they would do.

LAT: Could Iran provide more than what the U.S. does currently?

Salem: Iran could definitely provide much more, and they would be happy to do it. The obstacles would be more internal than international, since there is no way the U.S. could stop such a thing from happening.

But no matter who wins the elections, Lebanon is a confessional system, a diverse country, and it would be difficult for them to push that through on their own. And I don’t think Hezbollah really wants to do that. Hezbollah benefits from a Lebanese state that is close to the West and an army that is innocuous against it — it provides protection.

And besides, Hezbollah relies on its own weapons, not the state’s….

Haaretz [Thanks to FLC as we cannot read Haaretz here]

“… This week, Hezbollah’s representative in South Lebanon said a war between Israel and Lebanon is possible only if the coalition led by Hariri continues to rule. He says Israel will only dare attack if it feels that Hezbollah has serious opposition at home. Beri, parliament’s outgoing speaker, called on voters to vote in such a way that “the results will worry Israel …. Let us show Lebanese unity that will not allow [Israel] to attack and rely on the division that was characteristic during the Second Lebanon War.”

Egypt and Saudi Arabia share Israel’s concern about the election; in recent weeks they have taken pains to help Hezbollah’s rivals. ….

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has funneled huge sums to candidates from Hariri’s group to ensure their victory. The timing of the report in the German magazine Der Spiegel about Hezbollah’s involvement in the assassination of Hariri’s father, former prime minister Rafik Hariri, was no coincidence, and the exposure of the “Israeli spy ring” was also meant to play an important part in the campaign. …”

Obama woos Syria in push for peace
Sarah Baxter in Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi
The Sunday Times, June 7, 2009

BARACK OBAMA’S special envoy to the Middle East is to visit Syria this week after the president said “the moment is now” to push for peace.

Former senator George Mitchell’s expected visit follows a fortnight’s intensive diplomatic wooing of Syria in the hope of splintering its alliance with Iran and persuading Damascus to use its influence to moderate Hamas, the militant Islamic group that rules the Gaza Strip.

There has been no official confirmation of Mitchell’s trip, but one State Department official said he was “95% sure” that Syria was on the itinerary: “The president is committed to comprehensive peace. Syria is one of the parties. It therefore makes sense for Mitchell to start engaging them.”

Robert Burns of AP argues in an article, copied below, that Syria may emerge at the center of Obama’s Peace effort in the Middle East.

He quotes Aaron David Miller, who explains:

Obama has explained his goal — a reinvigorated peace effort — but left unclear how he will get there.

“This is a real problem, that the administration has identified a rhetorical policy, one that right now has no legs,” said Aaron David Miller, a foreign policy expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars who served for two decades in the State Department as a senior Mideast policy adviser

Miller suggests that Obama has no plan because he intends to bring down Netanyahu’s government first over the issue of stopping settlements – something most believe Netanyahu cannot do without splintering his coalition of right wing groups that include many settlers. Miller continues,

“If he’s trying to achieve an agreement, then he has to have an approach to demonstrate how being tough with the Israelis on settlement activity actually gets him to the negotiating table and then to an agreement,” he added. “It may be … that the president right now doesn’t care about reaching an agreement” if he has been advised that he will never get a viable deal as long as Netanyahu is prime minister.

Burns then argues that Obama may be looking to Syria for a plan. He writes:

At the same time, Obama is forging ahead on Syria, where U.S. relations have been in decline for years.

If this is true — and the Syrians clearly hoped it would be true when Obama was elected — their initial hopes have steadily diminished. It is hard to see the outlines of a Syrian plan today. Burns writes that Mitchell is heading to Syria. The State Department spokespeople, however, refuse to say he is headed to Damascus on his Middle East trip. Fundamental disagreements divide the two countries. Syria wants a US ambassador posted to Damascus. Washington wants Syrian action on Iraq. Both are in a “you-first-mode” that suggests deep distrust, built up by years of mutual demonization and sanctions. It is not clear whether the results of the Lebanese elections, no mater how they turn out, will help to resolve these disagreements. A number of observers have suggested that all US rapprochement with Syria is on hold until after the June 7 elections, but I cannot figure out how elections will resolve US-Syrian misunderstandings. On the contrary, they are only likely exacerbate misunderstandings and mistrust as each side maneuvers to influence the composition of Lebanon’s government.

What is more, Obama has not mentioned Syria in recent remarks. Instead, he has focused exclusively on the Palestinian track. Not only did he not mention Syria in his Cairo speech but he neglected to even give a nod toward “comprehensive” solutions in his Cairo speech. Both the Saudi plan and the new 57-country, Jordanian plan went unmentioned.

I wish Burns were correct in arguing that Syria is emerging as the focal point of Obama’s regional peace plan, but I see little indication that it is. When Obama was first elected, Washington had a significant group of Syria firsters. These included both Martin Indyk and Aaron David Miller. They argued for Syria first because resolving the Syrian-Israeli dispute seems so uncomplicated compared to fixing Palestine, a problem that both hold little hope of seeing resolving.

If Obama does want Netanyahu fall, as Miller suggests, it is possible that Syria could emerge as the focal point of a peace plan in the distant future, or, conversely, it is possible that Netanyahu may still reach out to Syria and accept to sacrifice the Golan if he senses that his government is about to splinter. Martin Indyk predicted some months ago that Netanyahu would rather trade the Golan than see his government fall a second time. These later conjectures seem improbable to much to complicated to me. Most probably, the Obama administration has simple chosen to focus on the Palestinians, as it claims, and doesn’t really have a plan for how the endgame will work out.

Analysis: Broader US Mideast peace effort likely
By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) — If “the moment is now” to push for Mideast peace, as President Barack Obama asserted in Germany, it may unfold with the administration looking to find a peacemaking role for Syria and exploring possibilities for dealing with Israel’s longtime foe, Hamas.

Obama raised expectations of progress at a particularly perilous point in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict. He faces a divided and hawkish Israeli government, a fractured Palestinian governing authority, a stubborn Iranian influence in the region and no obvious way forward to a lasting peace.

On Friday the president announced that he was sending his Mideast peace envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, back to the region to follow up on “a whole host of negotiation points.” The State Department said Mitchell will meet with Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians next week.

He also intends to visit Syria, which would mark the highest-level U.S. visit there since Obama took office in January.

Obama has explained his goal — a reinvigorated peace effort — but left unclear how he will get there.

“This is a real problem, that the administration has identified a rhetorical policy, one that right now has no legs,” said Aaron David Miller, a foreign policy expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars who served for two decades in the State Department as a senior Mideast policy adviser.

Obama has been clear about at least one element of his strategy: forcefully and publicly insisting that Israel needs to live up to what the Americans insist is a commitment to freezing the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Palestinians have long regarded that disputed land as part of a future state of their own.

In the short term, Obama faces long odds of getting what he wants from the Israelis.

Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said it’s unlikely that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can make significant concessions.

“I’d say during the next couple of months or longer than that, you’ll see some very intense negotiations where Obama and Netanyahu try to get a mutually effective vision they can implement,” said Steinberg, head of political science at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.

But while Netanyahu may dismantle some unauthorized West Bank settler outposts and remove some checkpoints, Steinberg said, it would be difficult for him to loosen the embargo on Hamas-ruled Gaza or make other major concessions without the risk of splintering his largely hard-line coalition government.

In Jerusalem, Israeli officials said Friday that the government plans to allow construction inside existing West Bank settlements to accommodate growing families — in direct defiance of Obama’s demand.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to further stiffen the administration’s position. She told reporters Friday that even if the Bush administration had an unofficial understanding with Israel that it could make exceptions to a ban on further settlements, Obama recognizes no such arrangement.

It’s not altogether clear what Obama believes he can achieve by pressing the Israelis on settlements.

“Even if the Israelis are at fault — and in this case they are, by continuing to expand settlements — the question is, what is the strategy? What is the overall objective that the president is trying to achieve?” Miller asked.

“If he’s trying to achieve an agreement, then he has to have an approach to demonstrate how being tough with the Israelis on settlement activity actually gets him to the negotiating table and then to an agreement,” he added. “It may be … that the president right now doesn’t care about reaching an agreement” if he has been advised that he will never get a viable deal as long as Netanyahu is prime minister.

At the same time, Obama is forging ahead on Syria, where U.S. relations have been in decline for years.

Syria held indirect talks with Israel last year mediated by Turkey. But the discussions were halted during the Israeli offensive on Gaza in December and January.

Syria has since said it was ready to resume indirect talks with Israel’s new hard-line government as long as they focus on a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau captured from Syria in the 1967 war.

Syria and ally Iran are strong supporters of militant Islamic groups in the region, including Hamas. One possible motive for Obama’s outreach to Syria could be to get the Syrians to pressure Hamas to meet international demands, including that it accept Israel’s right to exist.

Obama has followed the Bush administration’s policy of not talking directly to Hamas, which the U.S. regards as a terrorist organization. But in his remarks in Cairo on Thursday he seemed to suggest some basis for believing that the militant Islamist movement might be drawn into the peace process.

“If they are serious about delivering a Palestinian state, then they should renounce violence, accept the framework provided by the previous agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist,” Obama told reporters in Cairo. “That still leaves enormous room for them to negotiate on a whole host of issues.”

Nathan Brown, a professor of political science at George Washington University, said Friday that while Obama’s language on Hamas has been similar to that of his predecessor in the White House, his tone is gentler.

The approach by former President George W. Bush was to spell out conditions for Hamas to meet and wait for them to respond.

“With Obama (in Cairo) it was almost as if he was negotiating with them in public,” Brown said, adding that he believes a focus on Hamas will be among Obama’s next moves.

___

EDITOR’S NOTE — Robert Burns has covered national security affairs for The Associated Press since 1990.

Paul Salem, of Carnegie in Lebanon, stated that these are the first proper free elections since 1972 and outlined three posts-election scenarios:

1. Hung parliament what Salem sees as most likely. “This is where each camp holds large minorities and a group of independents, close to the President, holding the balance of votes,” Salem said. Outside powers of Saudi, US and Syria are directly and indirectly trying to push for this occurrence Salem stated. Interestingly, Salem claims that Syria does not want an all out March 8th victory because Aoun has a difficult relationship with Syria and Hezbollah is closer to Iran. So for Syria the best result is a hung parliament and Syria successfully sold this idea to the US and Saudi as the best option, according to Salem.

2. March 14 win. March 14 have stated that they will refuse to grant veto power to March 8 but Salem warns this could lead to violence and should instead get clear commitments from March 8 to move forward on key political and economic issues.

3. March 8 win. Salem states that this could lead to a situation where there is a collapse in support for Lebanon from the international community and the Gulf states. This could lead to “a collapse in confidence in Lebanon and a precipitous decline into economic and social unrest.”

Planned De-Mining of Turkey’s Border with Syria Referred to Court
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 108
June 5, 2009, By: Lale Sariibrahimoglu

The bill has stirred nationalist passions to an extent that has prompted the opposition to accuse the government of treason. Speculation that an Israeli company might win the contract [to remove landmines from the Turkish-Syrian border, has inflamed sentiments and revealed endemic prejudice towards Israel, even among the staunchly secular lawmakers of the CHP in this constitutionally secular but predominantly Muslim nation. This is despite Turkey’s continued close military and defense procurement ties with Israel, under the Islam-sensitive rule of the AKP.

The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in response to severe criticism over his government’s draft bill said, “We should first clear the mines in our heads” (Hurriyet, June 3). During a speech on June 2 at his party’s parliamentary group, Erdogan similarly criticized the opposition for hyping fear over the issue throughout the country. “Opposition parties have planted so many mines on the borders of their own minds that they cannot walk past them,” he noted.

Syria has taken a number of steps to win US favor and get relations back on a solid footing. I had dinner with a Western Diplomat in Damascus whose job is to coordinate with Syrian Security. He was nonplussed by America’s inability to fully engage with Syria and to name an Ambassador to Damascus, the stumbling block preventing better relations. “Why not just name and ambassador?” he wondered. “It is not a concession or humiliation for America. It is natural to have diplomatic relations with countries you want to deal with.” Besides, he listed a number of things Syria has done to build confidence to convince America to move ahead. They are:

1. Syria gave US diplomats direct access to Syrian intelligence officials. Of course, this did not mean that intelligence officials “gave” Americans useful information, but it was an indication of Syria’s willingness to work together with Americans should the US resume normal diplomatic relations. Evidently, the Americans wanted “a scalp,” or the arrest of a prominent Iraqi opposition member resident in Syria, which they could take home to impress the doubters. Syria refused to give it.

2. Syria has, according to this diplomat, let Iraqi opposition members resident in Syria know that they must not engage in smuggling, because it will be against Syria’s national security interests. This means that Syria is actively restraining Iraqi opposition leaders from hurting the Maliki government even if Damascus will not turn them over to American or Iraqi officials for interrogation.

3. Syria has stopped an important shipment of Iranian arms to Hizbullah, using the same rational: it is against Syria’s national security interests. (This suggests that Syria’s and Iran’s defense agreements have an escape clause which hinges on “national security interest.” )

The Hizballah Dilemma By Andrew Lee Butters in Time (Thursday, Jun. 04, 2009)

Butters’ article is one of the best I have read on US policy toward Hizbullah and the region. The US inability to deal with Hizbullah helps explain its inability to properly engaging Syria. Butters underlines why it was such a mistake for the US to partner with Israel in 1982, during during the Jewish State’s invasion of Lebanon. When Hizbullah killed Americans in its effort to defeat Israel and liberate its land, it earned undying US hatred and a desire for vengeance. Israel’s enemies became America’s. Butters gets the following answer from a US State Department official in Beirut when he asks if the US is prepared to talk to Hizbullah:

“Do you ever have any contact with Hizballah these days?” I asked the official. Not only is it illegal for U.S. government officials to have dealings with terrorist organizations, she said, but the photographs of her predecessors killed by Hizballah that hang from the embassy walls serve as a daily reminder of why America doesn’t talk to the group.

The search for vengeance that has taken root between America and its enemies in the Middle East affects even little things. I spoke to a Syrian friend the other day who explained that he had been called in by the mukhabarat (state security) for the first time not long ago. His sin was that he had attended a reception at the US embassy. The security official asked him: “Why do you need to eat the American’s food? They have placed sanctions on us and try to starve us. Do we really need to eat from their table? Isn’t it better that we show them that we can feed outselves?” My friend looked at me — most of his business if with foreign companies — and he said, “I could not disagree.”

To follow Lebanon’s elections:

Sharek961 invites people to participate – in English and Arabic – through SMS, email, Twitter and web reports on what is happening around the country, from political rallies and polling centres to vote-buying and violence. Sharek961 anonymously publishes these reports alongside news reports, blog posts, photos, videos and tweets, all in one place.

Meshaal on Obama speech: Good, but– By Helena Cobban (She has also interviewed Foreign Minister Moualem, so keep tuned to “Just World News.”

The audacity of hope, from Cairo, By Sami Moubayed

U.S. Official: Polls to Decide Between Independence and Extremism

A high-level U.S. official told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat that Lebanon’s parliamentary elections would either put Lebanon on the path of independence or extremism. Sunday’s polls would either put the country on the path of “completing independence and sovereignty” away from foreign meddling or the path of “the forces of violence and extremism to reach political objectives,” the source said in remarks published Friday.

IAEA Finds More Uranium Traces in Syria
2009-06-05 17:41:06.297 GMT

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found traces of uranium at an additional location in Syria, according to the agency’s report from Friday which also focussed on the country’s alleged nuclear reactor site at al-Kibar. The Vienna-based agency made it also clear it did not believe Syria’s explanations about the al-Kibar site that was bombed by Israel in 2007 and which Damascus claims was a conventional military facility.

“The information provided by Syria to date does not adequately support its assertions about the nature of the site,” IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei wrote in the report to member countries.

It was the second find of man-made uranium after IAEA inspectors detected such particles at the bombed site.

The new traces were found at a small reactor in Damascus that is used for education and teaching purposes and that is under routine IAEA surveillance.

Hezbollah Coalition May Win Lebanon Vote in Tilt Away From U.S.
By Massoud A. Derhally

June 5 (Bloomberg) — A Hezbollah-led coalition may expand its power in Lebanon’s June 7 parliamentary elections, helping the Iranian-backed Shiite group preserve a militia the U.S. has sought to disband.

The U.S. supports Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his pro- Western coalition and classifies Hezbollah, led by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as a terrorist organization. It also backs United Nations resolutions calling on Hezbollah to disarm its militia, which fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.

Significant electoral gains for the Hezbollah bloc would challenge President Barack Obama’s efforts to pacify the Middle East and move toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The group mocks pro-U.S. Arab states such as Egypt for failing to help the Palestinians, and says its private army is essential to defend Lebanon against Israeli attacks.

“When the party is in control of the government, it will be harder for Hezbollah’s internal and external opponents to call for its disarmament,” said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a professor at the Lebanese American University. “It would mean the end of a pro-Western government.”

Hezbollah, which also has Syrian backing, is set to make gains because “they respond to grievances, sentiments and emotions of their constituency better,” said Rami G. Khouri, director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. “They provide social welfare, resistance, services.”

Autonomous Militias

A poll conducted earlier this year of about 4,000 people showed the Hezbollah coalition, which includes Christian and other Muslim parties, would win a majority of two or three seats in the 128-member parliament if the election were held at that time. Taken between February and April by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, the poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

The Hezbollah-led bloc currently has 58 seats and the Siniora coalition 70 seats….

As long as Hezbollah maintains its militia, says Marwan Hamadeh, a government lawmaker and Siniora ally, Lebanon will be plagued by political instability and intervention by Iran and Syria.

“We succeeded in expelling the Syrian army but they’re still here with their militias, intelligence services, aggressive media and unveiled will for a comeback,” Hamadeh said.

The 2005 killing of former Premier Rafiq Hariri in a roadside bomb attack sparked mass protests that forced Syria to end a three-decade military presence in Lebanon, and helped a pro-Western coalition win elections that year.

Political Balancing Act

While Hezbollah has gained popularity by fighting Israel, a larger role in government could blunt its radicalism, said Josh Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

Lebanon’s political system distributes parliament seats and government jobs among different groups. The president is always a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of parliament a Shiite.

That makes coalition-building imperative. Hezbollah’s network of allies, for instance, includes a Christian party headed by former army general Michel Aoun. Siniora’s coalition includes Sunnis, Christians and Druze.

“Lebanon is a mosaic and it requires consensus and agreement,” Landis said. “Using the political process to solve important problems allows us to move away from violence and the use of arms.”

From MEMRI Jumblatt’s New Strategy

Druze leader Walid Jumblatt recently held a closed-door meeting with a small group of Druze sheikhs loyal to him; the transcript of the meeting was published in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar . In the meeting, Jumblatt conveyed a clear and unequivocal message, namely that in light of the growing power of the Shi’ites in Lebanon and the decline in the power of the Druze, the latter must accept the new reality, stop fighting the Shi’ites, and coexist with them.

In support of this position, Jumblatt cited the demographic and political changes in the country. He said that the Shi’ites are growing stronger, both in numbers and in power, while the Sunnis are “more dangerous” than the Shi’ites and the Christians are “dying out.” He also explained that the reality, as well as the attitude towards the Shi’ites, are changing not only in Lebanon but throughout the world, as manifested by Britain’s recent contacts with Hizbullah and the U.S.’s dialogue with Iran; consequently, the Druze too must be realistic and think of the future.

The sheikhs clearly had difficulty in accepting Jumblatt’s position and the new path he urged them to take, but he repeatedly insisted that there was no other choice…..

Jumblatt: “They are the ones who started it in Dir Qoubal.(3) Okay, [but] now can we put an end to it? Or do you want us to create a Druze Karbala?(4) The Sunnis have [already] invented [their own] new Karbala. There was the [original Shi’ite] Karbala of Hassan and Hussein, and now the Sunnis have created a new Karbala called May 7 [out of] the three people who were killed in Beirut. I ask you: shouldn’t we Druze put an end to this matter? They have killed some of our people, and we have killed some of theirs. Shall we stop, or shall we continue the killing? That is the question”…

“On May 7, 2008, the Sunnis Brought in 1,000 Men from [the North]; They Did Not Last More than 15 Minutes [Against Hizbullah] – We Cannot Start a Religious, Psychological and Political War with the Shi’ites”

“[In 2007-2008, when we argued about who would replace Emil Lahoud as president]… I met with what’s-his-name, [Maronite military leader] Samir Geagea. He wanted war. The Christians wanted us to start a war with the Shi’ites so that they could look on from the sidelines, and even some of the Sunnis wanted there to be a confrontation between the Shi’ites and ourselves. We saw the Sunnis in Beirut [on May 7, 2008]. They brought in 1,000 men from ‘Akar, but they did not last more than 15 minutes [against Hizbullah]. We cannot [afford to] start a religious, psychological and political war with the Shi’ites. Look at those [fundamentalist Sunni Islamists] who shave their mustaches and grow their beards…”

Sheikhs: “They are more dangerous [than the Shi’ites].”…..

Clinton Rejects Israeli Claims of Accord on Settlements (Post, June 6, 2009)

Syrian Kurds Look for Iraqi Shelter

Iraq’s Kurdish Region is becoming a favoured destination for an increasing number of Syrian Kurds deprived of nationality rights by authorities in Damascus. By Karlos Zurutuza / Dohuk

syria seeks iraqi economic ties
niqash | | thu 04 jun 09

As Syria battles with domestic economic difficulties it is gearing up to dramatically expand economic ties with Iraq in the hope of profiting from new opportunities linked to Iraqi redevelopment.

“The current value of bilateral trade is US $800 million,” said Syrian Minister of Economy and Trade Amer Hosni Lutfi on a recent trip to Iraq. “We are supposed to expand bilateral trade so that it will hit US $3 billion within two years.”

Officials from the two countries say that Syria could become Iraq’s main trading partner in the very near future.

“Syria can be the biggest beneficiary from the Iraq market,” said Adnan al-Sharify, Commercial Attaché at the Iraqi embassy in Damascus. “I expect that in the coming two years Iraqi-Syrian trade will be higher than all other neighboring countries. We hope to reach a trade exchange equal to US $10 billion.”

Although the two countries endured poor relations during the 1980s, Syria became a key trade gateway for Iraq during the 1990s as it faced international sanctions. But ties soured once more following the US-led invasion of 2003. Syria voiced opposition to the occupation causing a breakdown in political and economic relations and Syrian exports to Iraq were valued at just US $641 million in 2007, compared to US $2 billion immediately prior to the invasion.

By S. Farah for Syria Comment
(posted by Alex)
June 29th brings to a close a one-year celebration of the life of St Paul in most of the world. According to the BBC he is “undoubtedly one of the most important figures in the history of the Western world”. His conversion in Damascus forever changed the west, and firmly placed its cultural roots in Syria.

St. Paul was born a Syrian Jew; His conversion is an important part of the history of Syria. It is a true Damascene event. According to western and Christian traditions his conversion to Christianity happened on the road to Damascus where he experienced a vision after which he was temporarily blinded. He was then led by his companions blind to the straight street in Damascus. There it is said that St. Ananias the leader of the new Christian community of Damascus met him. St. Ananias then cured him of his blindness, and later baptized him in the Barada River. He then left the city through Bab Kisan. All these places including the house of St. Ananias are still preserved today and are living places of worship in Damascus.

Known as the apostle to the gentile, St. Paul is widely credited for spreading Christianity in the west. His teachings have deeply influenced western culture and traditions.

The “Road to Damascus” became a widely used metaphorical reference to mean a conversion of thought and a change of heart and mind.

Christian and Islamic symbols at a souvenir shop in Maaloula, Syria

St. Paul’s message extends beyond religion to universal fraternity and equality for all people. He famously declared, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one”. His words continue to influence and inspire 2000 years later. Of all the gospel and philosophers, President Obama chose the teachings of St. Paul for his inaugural speech when he said, “…in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

This message of universal equality and coexistence is part of the history of Syria. When Islam, also a religion with a universal message, first entered Syria Muslims were welcomed by the locals who never thought that Islam might be a separate religion. Islam’s acceptance of the Old and New Testaments, its esteem for Jewish prophets, and its veneration of Jesus and Mary made it familiar to the Christian inhabitants. And when the new Muslim caliphs made Damascus their capital, the Christians were instrumental in the administration of the new empire as it spread the new faith eastward. Muslims and Christians shared places of worship, and the caliphs were known to spend their retreat in remote Christian monasteries.  The Umayyad mosque in the center of Damascus is a great example of this intertwined relation and shared history between Christians and Muslims. In its center is the shrine of John the Baptist and on its southeastern corner is the minaret of Jesus, decorated with the Jewish Star. It is where Muslims believe that Jesus will return on judgment day.

Syria continued to be a welcoming home for all. At the end of the 15th century, Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal found Syria to be welcoming refuge where they melded into the broader culture. Other places the Spanish and Portuguese Jews went, they held onto their customs and lived apart. In Damascus and Aleppo, they became like the older Jewish community of Syria, with everyone speaking Arabic. Syria remains a refuge and a home for all regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Today the world in general and the Middle East in particular are sinking deeper into extremism.

The story of St Paul and Syria’s rich shared heritage makes Syria a vital link between the Christian west and the Muslim east. This history is a treasure trove for Syria as it reaches out to the world.

Syria today needs the west, and the US in particular to endorse its strategic regional role to foster and promote regional stability.

To this end, Syria needs a moral rallying cry. It needs to focus its message to reflect its core values, to connect to the west on a visceral level.

The West, including America, should also proactively and urgently engage with Syria based on their shared cultural and religious roots. As Syria continues to reform its political System it will undoubtedly emerge as the unrivaled model for the future of the Middle East.

Obama’s Speech: a Syrian Reaction
By Ehsani
Syria Comment, Thursday June 4, 2009

It is tempting to get intoxicated by what some are already calling Obama’s “new beginning with the Muslim world” and on the changed tone from Washington.

On a closer look, however, the speech does nothing to change the facts on the ground.

The 1.5 Billion Moslems and Arabs did not need the reminder that in the Middle East, America’s concern for Israel’s security “is paramount,” as Obama said in his al-Arabiya broadcast of a few months ago:

““America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and Antisemitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”

The above does not justify Israel’s conduct and occupation.

OK, necessary words within an American context, Arabs may concede. Arabs would even be able to embrace these words if Arabs were for once treated equally with Israelis, with justice, and according to international law. But that is not what Obama told Arabs.

What does Mr. Obama demand from Israel?

“At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”.

This is an admission that the U.S. cannot guarantee that the settlements will be dismantled. Only “continued” settlement is condemned. Their is no reference to the Arab peace plan. He also avoided any specificity about how he will deliver on a Palestinian state and how viable that entity will be.

The Palestinian side “must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist. “

What does Israel have to do?

Israel “must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society.’’ There was no call for them to give up violence or to obey international law.

As for Iran, “It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.”

What does he say about Syria or other Arab occupied land?

This subject was not even worth a mention. The Arab-Israeli conflict was essentially reduced to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The U.S. renews the sanction on Syria. It then asks to send a delegation from Centcom to discuss Iraqi security. Yet, the President refuses to even mention Syria in his speech or offer a commitment to renewed peace talks on that front. Washington seems committed to cherry picking in Syria. Choosing to address the issues that benefit it while rejecting discussion of the issues of occupation that drive Syrian policy in the region.

[END]

Ford Prefect said:

One can argue the merits or the shortcomings of the Obama’s speech in Cairo endlessly. However, we need to also underscore the gesture of this speech in parallel to its content. The fact that an American president chose an Islamic capital to address the Muslim world is, in and of itself, a significant fact – one that underscores this administration’s boldness and innovative thinking.

Having said that, however, I wish he has used his speech to signify the importance of the Arab Israeli conflict and how this conflict is pitting two great civilizations against one another.

Abstracting the conflict into fun-sized components of “settlements” vs. “violence” is naïve at best. As most in the West believe, if Hamas and HA would just stop their armed resistance, and if Israel would just stop its ever-expanding settlements, peace in the Middle East will suddenly happen by default. I wish it was that simple. And conveniently forgetting to mention Syria, god, bad, or indifferent shows that Foggy Bottom still doesn’t get it.

And one final observation: The hand-picked, by-invitation-only Mubarak cronies applauded heavily when Obama justly renounced torture and the closing of Guantanamo prison. How funny!

[end]

Sami Moubayed on the speech
CBS News

When asked to mention their favorite US presidents, three names usually come to the mind of ordinary Syrians: John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. As far as the Syrians are concerned, these three presidents were the ones to have pursued relative justice, in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Rime Allaf on al-Jazeera and in the New York Times on Obama’s speech.

Syria to Relax Share Price Trading Band on Damascus Exchange

009-06-01, By Nadim Issa

June 1 (Bloomberg) — The Syrian Commission on Financial Markets & Securities will relax the limit imposed on share price movements on the Damascus Stock Exchange this month, said Elias Haddad, deputy chairman of the Commission. “We are speeding up on this issue because we want to increase the demand on trading in the Damascus bourse and the Commission will meet in a few days to sort this out,” Haddad said today by phone from Damascus. At the same time, the Commission will give international investors access to the exchange, said Haddad.

“We are also working on amending the corporate law to lower the nominal value of listed companies shares from 500 Syrian pounds to 100 or 50 Syrian pounds,” Haddad said, adding that the change in corporate law will have to be ratified by government. Under current rules share prices are allowed to fluctuate by two percentage points before trading is halted.

Analysis: Hyping the Israeli threat pays off

by Gary Gambill

The Jewish Chronicle (London)

21 May 2009

Two weeks ahead of its elections, Lebanon is conducting a wide-ranging crackdown on alleged Israeli spies. In sharp contrast to previous, smaller-scale operations, the current wave of arrests is being spearheaded not by Hizbollah or the army, but by the Internal Security Forces (ISF), an American-trained agency commanded by partisans of parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri.

The commander of the ISF, Gen Ashraf Rifi, claims that the crackdown is the culmination of high-tech surveillance dating back nearly two years. But many suspect that the timing is intended to bolster the ruling coalition’s bleak electoral prospects — both by re-affirming its anti-Zionist bona fides and by demonstrating that the state can contend with Israel without Hizbollah’s militia.

Indeed, some supporters of the current government report that the alleged spy network has penetrated the ranks of Hizbollah itself. In contrast, pro-opposition media portray the crackdown as a vindication of Hizbollah’s warnings about the Israeli threat and play up the fact that one of the men arrested is nominally a member of Hariri’s Future Movement.

So how the campaign will affect the elections is difficult to say with any degree of certainty. Whatever the outcome of the election, however, the counterespionage campaign will likely raise serious questions in the US Congress about continued American security assistance to Lebanon.

Nothwithstanding the array of captured spy gadgets put on display by the ISF, it is not clear how much substance there is to the charges. Security crimes continue to be prosecuted under a system of military tribunals similar to Syria’s. Mr Rifi has proudly proclaimed that most of the accused have given full confessions, but this is nothing to be proud of. Torture is virtually routine in security cases and the tribunals almost never recognise the retraction of confessions extracted under duress. Since uncooperative detainees can be held arbitrarily for years before they even see a military judge, everyone confesses eventually. At this point, the only people that one can safely assume were spying for Israel are the three men who have quietly slipped across the border since the crackdown began.

Gary Gambill is editor of Mideast Monitor

“Will There Be a US Ambassador in Damascus by September?”
By Joshua Landis
Syria Comment, June 3, 2009

The State Department has indicated it has no plans for now to return a U.S. ambassador to Damascus.

This bland denial cannot be true.

If “Syria has agreed to let a delegation of US military commanders visit Damascus in the coming weeks,” as Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post states in his article copied below, there must be plans afoot to return a US ambassador to Damascus.

Syria has long insisted that the US must treat Syria with a modicum of civility and respect if it expects to make progress on outstanding foreign policy issues. Syrians state that the US cannot expect to humiliate and insult Syria while at the same time demanding cooperation.

Under President Bush, Washington wanted it both ways. The neocons insisted that Syria was to get no rewards and no recognition for cooperation. The pragmatists, however, recognized that they needed Syria’s cooperation on intelligence and security arrangements if Washington hoped to tamp out Iraqi resistance and save the lives of US military in Iraq.

Secretary Rice met Walid Moualem twice – once at Sharm al-Shaykh and a second time in Istanbul. She asked to send two generals to Damascus to jump-start intelligence sharing and security cooperation on Iraq. Syria was eager to oblige, claiming that cutting down al-Qaida and stabilizing Iraq were both in Syria’s national interest. But Syria also insisted that if America truly wanted cooperation it should treat Syria as an ally and not a rogue state. Syrian officials asked Washington to return an Ambassador to Damascus as a token of cooperation and civil exchange. Rice refused. Having normal relations was seen as a sign of “rewarding” Syria. The Vice President’s office put the kibosh on this.

The bottom line for Syrian officials in recent discussions with Feltman and Shapiro is that Syria will not give to the new US administration what it would not give to Bush. Put in other terms, Syria continues to insist on a modicum of civility from the US if there is to be real cooperation. The US should not insult Syria or try to embarrass it publicly. Differences should be worked out in private through normal diplomatic channels and not in the press.

This is why the language of Obama’s extension of the sanctions on Syria a little over a week ago was so upsetting to Damascus. Syria was denounced as a terrorist state and threat to US national security. Leaks to the Washington Post by unnamed sources claiming that Syria was reopening the Ho Chi Min trail of suicide bombers into Iraq were only too reminiscent of Bush era diplomacy and its underhanded media methods, designed to demonize and intimidate. Syrian officials believed that Washington had fooled them. It was not going to engage on the basis of mutual respect, the avoidance of public insults, and civilized diplomacy.

Syria’s response to Washington’s insult was to cut off intelligence sharing that Damascus had already begun. The acting military attache at the US embassy in Damascus had been given full privileges to meet directly with Syrian intelligence. This access and gesture of good faith was promptly revoked by Damascus. The result was the intervention by Senator Kerry, as described by David Ignatius in the Post several days ago. Secretary of State Clinton then called Foreign Minister Walid Moualem and the misunderstandings seem to have been patched up.

Mitchell is coming and we are told that the military delegation is coming. At the same time, US diplomats deny that plans are afoot to return an Ambassador or to normalize diplomatic relations with Syria. Kessler quotes an unnamed US official to say: “But there has to be action on both sides. It is not simply that the Syrians get to sit there and wait for us.” This is disingenuous. The Syrians are the ones who are providing intelligence and responding to the US interests for better security arrangements on the border. The Syrians believe that the Americans are expecting cooperation for nothing – that it is Washington which gets to sit there and wait for Syria to act. Syria has insisted for four long years that the least Washington can do is send an Ambassador and be polite. Doing so doesn’t cost American anything but to get off its high horse.

That is why I don’t believe State Department officials when they say there are no plans to send an Ambassador to Damascus. Besides, I had lunch with an “unnamed” foreign diplomat today who bet me that there would be the announcement of a US ambassador in Damascus by September.

—-

Syria to Allow Visit of U.S. Military Leaders: Insurgency in Iraq Is Topic at Hand
By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Wednesday, June 3, 2009

After fits and starts, Syria and the United States have taken steps in recent days that could lay the groundwork for a greatly improved relationship, officials from both countries said yesterday.

Syria has agreed to let a delegation of U.S. military commanders visit Damascus in the coming weeks, when they will discuss joint efforts to stem the insurgency in Iraq. The Obama administration’s Middle East peace envoy, George J. Mitchell, is also planning a trip to Damascus this month. Mitchell, the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Syria in four years, will probe whether it is ready to engage in serious peace talks with Israel.

The visits were sealed in a phone call Sunday between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem, though Syria has not yet confirmed a date for the military visit. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said yesterday, “They agreed to have ongoing conversations about a full range of issues.”

U.S. officials said the administration was not committing to drafting a formal plan for improving relations, but the two visits could form the building blocks of a new relationship. Although officials from U.S. Central Command have met their Syrian counterparts at regional security meetings on Iraq, military officials have been unable for years to have a thorough, joint discussion on the situation in Iraq.

“If we can move on the Mitchell agenda and the Iraq agenda, that will have a positive effect on the bilateral relationship,” said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issues publicly. “But there has to be action on both sides. It is not simply that the Syrians get to sit there and wait for us.”

Central Command officials did not respond to a request for details on who would travel to Damascus, but other U.S. officials said the officers would not be high-ranking.

Still, Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, hailed the military visit as a potential breakthrough. “The Bush administration used to accuse us of aiding the insurgents, and we used to say it was untrue,” he said. “We said we needed to sit together and discuss the issue, but they would not do that.”

With the Obama administration, “we have a very different context,” Moustapha said. “This administration wants to address all issues. We believe this is a very strong opportunity to cooperate with this administration.”

Moustapha said helping bring peace to Iraq is in Syria’s interest because it is harboring 1.5 million Iraqi refugees. “They will not leave until they think it is safe,” he said.

The United States has not had an ambassador in Syria since 2005, when the Bush administration withdrew Margaret Scobey to protest the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon battling Syrian influence in that country. There are no signs that the Obama administration is close to sending an ambassador back to Damascus.

Acting Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey D. Feltman has made two visits to Syria since President Obama took office, but until now there was little indication of a rapprochement between the two countries.

Indeed, Moustapha said the administration’s decision last month to renew sanctions under the Syrian Accountability Act was “very problematic” and shows that it still can be “captive to Israel’s interests.”

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who first disclosed the military visit on The Post’s online feature PostPartisan late Monday, reported that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) played an important role in easing friction between the two countries after Obama renewed the sanctions.

“Bring it Aoun” By Elias Muhanna – SC’s own Qifa Nabki in The National is a must read.

Michel Aoun’s supporters revere him as a reforming hero, the only man able to repair a nation’s woes – and he agrees. Elias Muhanna on the overlooked core of Lebanon’s opposition.

“Hezbollah No. 2 wants Lebanon unity government” By SAM F. GHATTAS

BEIRUT (AP) — Hezbollah’s No. 2 leader, confident of victory in Lebanese weekend elections, said Tuesday the Iranian-backed group would invite its pro-Western opponents to join a national unity government if it wins.

Sheik Naim Kassem rejected accusations that a government of Hezbollah and its allies would try to implement an Iranian-style Islamic state. In an interview with The Associated Press, he shrugged off warnings about boycotts and insisted Western nations are willing to talk to the new government irrespective of who wins.

But the unity government proposal shows Shiite Hezbollah’s concern that if it tries to govern Lebanon outright, it could risk international isolation and possibly another war with Israel, much like the Iranian-backed Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza….

“After June 7, there will be a new scene,” said Kassem, who leads Hezbollah’s election campaign. He said Hezbollah and its allies “will work to form a national unity government. How much we will succeed is up to the other side.”

Nicholas Noe in the Palestine Chronicle Thanks to FLC

“Over the last decade and a half, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Lebanon’s militant Shiite movement Hezbollah, has steadily moved front and center in the often vitriolic (and regularly under-informed) Western debate over the threat that ‘radical Islam’ is said to pose to the world at large.

Now, as Nasrallah appears ready to lead what could be a new majority in the Lebanese Parliament, the steady stream of accusations and threats have, somewhat predictably, turned into a deluge – with Arab states, Arab media and prosecutorial offices far and wide at the forefront of efforts to paint him as public enemy Number One.

A central reason for all the attention in the past, of course, has been that Nasrallah and Hezbollah have managed – for better or worse, depending on your perspective – to inflict a series of increasingly significant setbacks for US and especially Israeli interests: the ignominious, unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in May 2000, the failure of the Bush administration to vanquish Hezbollah and Syria in one go following the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri, and, of course, the July 2006 war – vigorously encouraged by the Americans and lost by the Israelis.

But Nasrallah has also become an object of particular focus and concern because, unlike many other Islamists, he has successfully staked a great deal of his power and prestige on a sustained appeal to reason in the all important battle for “hearts and minds.”

I also include this older article by the Leverett’s, which I had failed to publish last week. It is important.

“Have We Already Lost Iran?” via FLC
FLYNT LEVERETT & HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, in the NYTimes, here

“PRESIDENT OBAMA’S Iran policy has, in all likelihood, already failed. On its present course, the White House’s approach will not stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear fuel program — or, as Iran’s successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran — a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

This judgment may seem both premature and overly severe. We do not make it happily. We voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and we still want him to succeed in reversing the deterioration in America’s strategic position. But we also believe that successful diplomacy with Iran is essential to that end. Unless President Obama and his national security team take a fundamentally different approach to Tehran, they will not achieve a breakthrough.

This is a genuine shame, for President Obama had the potential to do so much better for America’s position in the Middle East. In his greeting to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on the Persian New Year in March, Mr. Obama included language meant to assuage Iranian skepticism about America’s willingness to end efforts to topple the regime and pursue comprehensive diplomacy.

Iranian diplomats have told us that the president’s professed willingness to deal with Iran on the “basis of mutual interest” in an atmosphere of “mutual respect” was particularly well received in Tehran. They say that the quick response of the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — which included the unprecedented statement that “should you change, our behavior will change, too” — was a sincere signal of Iran’s openness to substantive diplomatic proposals from the new American administration.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is backing away from the bold steps required to achieve strategic, Nixon-to-China-type rapprochement with Tehran. Administration officials have professed disappointment that Iranian leaders have not responded more warmly to Mr. Obama’s rhetoric. Many say that the detention of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi (who was released this month) and Ayatollah Khamenei’s claim last week that America is “fomenting terrorism” inside Iran show that trying to engage Tehran is a fool’s errand.

But this ignores the real reason Iranian leaders have not responded to the new president more enthusiastically: the Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate an ostensibly covert but well-publicized program, begun in President George W. Bush’s second term, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the Islamic Republic. Under these circumstances, the Iranian government — regardless of who wins the presidential elections on June 12 — will continue to suspect that American intentions toward the Islamic Republic remain, ultimately, hostile.

In this context, the Saberi case should be interpreted not as the work of unspecified “hard-liners” in Tehran out to destroy prospects for improved relations with Washington, but rather as part of the Iranian leadership’s misguided but fundamentally defensive reaction to an American government campaign to bring about regime change. Similarly, Ayatollah Khamenei’s charge that “money, arms and organizations are being used by the Americans directly across our western border to fight the Islamic Republic’s system” reflects legitimate concern about American intentions. Mr. Obama has reinforced this concern by refusing to pursue an American-Iranian “grand bargain” — a comprehensive framework for resolving major bilateral differences and fundamentally realigning relations.

More broadly, President Obama has made several policy and personnel decisions that have undermined the promise of his encouraging rhetoric about Iran. On the personnel front, the problem begins at the top, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As a presidential candidate, then-Senator Clinton ran well to the right of Mr. Obama on Iran, even saying she would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has told a number of allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf that she is skeptical that diplomacy with Iran will prove fruitful and testified to Congress that negotiations are primarily useful to garner support for “crippling” multilateral sanctions against Iran.

First of all, this posture is feckless, as Secretary Clinton does not have broad international support for sanctions that would come anywhere close to being crippling. More significantly, this posture is cynically counterproductive, for it eviscerates the credibility of any American diplomatic overtures in the eyes of Iranian leaders across the Islamic Republic’s political spectrum.

Even more disturbing is President Obama’s willingness to have Dennis Ross become the point person for Iran policy at the State Department. Mr. Ross has long been an advocate of what he describes as an “engagement with pressure” strategy toward Tehran, meaning that the United States should project a willingness to negotiate with Iran largely to elicit broader regional and international support for intensifying economic pressure on the Islamic Republic.

In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past “diplomacy” would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.

Iranian officials are fully aware of Mr. Ross’s views — and are increasingly suspicious that he is determined that the Obama administration make, as one senior Iranian diplomat said to us, “an offer we can’t accept,” simply to gain international support for coercive action.

Understandably, given that much of Mr. Obama’s national security team doesn’t share his vision of rapprochement with Iran, America’s overall policy is incoherent. …. Administration officials argue, with what seem to be straight faces, that the Iranian leadership should be impressed simply because American representatives will now show up for any nuclear negotiations with Iran that might take place.

Similarly, some officials suggest that the administration might be prepared to accept limited uranium enrichment on Iranian soil as part of a settlement — effectively asking to be given “credit” merely for acknowledging a well-established reality. …… we think that it will take a lot more to persuade Tehran of America’s new seriousness.

Tehran will certainly not be persuaded of American seriousness if Washington acquiesces to Israeli insistence on a deadline …. President Obama himself said, .. that he wants to see “progress” in nuclear negotiations before the end of the year. More specifically, Secretary Clinton and Mr. Ross have been pushing the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany to intensify multilateral sanctions against Iran if Tehran has not agreed to limit the expansion of its nuclear-fuel cycle program by the time the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York at the end of September.

This diplomatic approach is guaranteed to fail. Having a deadline for successful negotiations will undercut the perceived credibility of American diplomacy in Tehran and serve only to prepare the way for more coercive measures. Mr. Obama’s justification for a deadline — that previous American-Iranian negotiations produced “a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through” — is incorrect as far as Iranian behavior was concerned. For example, during talks over Afghanistan after 9/11 in which one of us (Hillary) took part, Tehran deported hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban operatives who had sought sanctuary in Iran, and also helped establish the new Afghan government. It was Washington, not Tehran, that arbitrarily ended these productive talks.

Beyond the nuclear issue, the administration’s approach to Iran degenerates into an only slightly prettified version of George W. Bush’s approach — that is, an effort to contain a perceived Iranian threat without actually trying to resolve underlying political conflicts. Obama administration officials are buying into a Bush-era delusion: that concern about a rising Iranian threat could unite Israel and moderate Arab states in a grand alliance under Washington’s leadership.

President Obama and his team should not be excused for their failure to learn the lessons of recent history in the Middle East — that the prospect of strategic cooperation with Israel is profoundly unpopular with Arab publics and that even moderate Arab regimes cannot sustain such cooperation. The notion of an Israeli-moderate Arab coalition united to contain Iran is not only delusional, it would leave the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in free fall. These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, Hamas and Hezbollah…..

To fix our Iran policy, the president would have to commit not to use force to change the borders or the form of government of the Islamic Republic. He would also have to accept that Iran will continue enriching uranium, and that the only realistic potential resolution to the nuclear issue would leave Iran in effect like Japan … Additionally, the president would have to accept that Iran’s relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah will continue, and be willing to work with Tehran to integrate these groups into lasting settlements of the Middle East’s core political conflicts…”

Syria has had its best year of rainfall in nearly eight years, farmers in the Coastal Mountains have been saying joyfully. In the Jazirah area, Syria’s bread basket, the rain has not been as plentiful, although it has been better than the previous three years which were terrible, I am told.

Syria’s GDP Rose by 7% in 2008 From the Syria Report by Jihad Yazigi

Syria’s real Gross Domestic Product rose by 7 percent in 2008 while the inflation rate stood at 5.4 percent, according to preliminary data from the Central Bureau of Statistics. Read
News

Economy: Drought Hits Hard on Syria’s North-East
The drought affecting Syria’s north-eastern region is leading to dramatic economic, human and social consequences, according to a joint FAO/WFP assessment mission conducted in May.

160 Syrian villages deserted ‘due to climate change’ By Talal El-Atrache

DAMASCUS (AFP) — Some 160 villages in northern Syria were deserted by their residents in 2007 and 2008 because of climate change, according to a study released on Tuesday.

The report drawn up by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) warns of potential armed conflict for control of water resources in the Middle East.

“The 2007/8 drought caused significant hardship in rural areas of Syria. In the northeast of the country, a reported 160 villages have been entirely abandoned and the inhabitants have had to move to urban areas,” it said….

The report says climate change could affect farm productivity in Syria, where agriculture represents 23 percent of gross domestic product and employs 30 percent of the economically active population.

“Some 13 percent of agricultural land was downgraded between 1980 and 2006 because of… urban expansion and agricultural, industrial and tourism activities,” Fayez Asrafy, a desertification expert, told AFP.

“Rainfall shrank by 10 millimetres (a year) between 1956 and 2006 while temperatures rose by (an average) 0.5 degrees Celsius, though below the worldwide average of 0.6 degrees,” Syrian meteorologist Khales Mawed said.

The IISD predicts even modest global warming would lead to a 30-percent drop in water in the Euphrates, which runs through Turkey, Syria and Iraq, while the Dead Sea would shrink in volume by 80 percent by the end of the century.

One-third of Syrians Live in “informal” Housing, Study Finds
2009-05-31

Damascus (dpa) — More than 35 per cent of Syrians live in “informal,” often ramshackle houses, a new Syrian study has found. This arrangement poses a threat to the ecology of Syria and is an impediment to the development of the country, the government’s Commission for Family Affairs concluded in its study, the results of which were published in Syria’s state daily Tishreen on Sunday.

Respondents told the commission that rising commodity prices, medical expenses, debt and taxes were the most serious problems they faced, and that they would need at least another 5,000 Syrian pounds (106 dollars) a month to make ends meet. A typical Syrian household includes six people, living on an average of 15,000 Syrian pounds (318 US dollars) a month, the study found, though in some areas, such as the northeastern Syrian city of Dair al-Zur, the average is higher, with as many
as 10 people living under one roof.

US Mideast envoy to the region next week: official

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, is to travel to the region next week, a State Department official said Tuesday.

“He is planning to travel to the region next week,” the official said. “At this point I can’t be more specific on travel itinerary.”

In mid-May, Syrian Ambassador Imad Mustapha, speaking on the US-funded, Arabic-language television station Al-Hurra, said “Mitchell and his team sent their passports to us today for obtaining visas to visit Syria.”

But at the time, State Department spokesman Robert Wood stopped short of confirming a Syria visit….

“Senator Mitchell has not yet decided upon a trip to Syria,” Wood said….

Mitchell’s expected trip raises US engagement a notch.

US Congress Tries to Undermine Obama’s Efforts to Stop Settlements
Politico via Friday Lunch Club

“As President Barack Obama prepares to depart for his first trip to the Arab world, the administration’s escalating pressure on Israel to freeze all growth of its settlements on Palestinian land has begun to stir concern among Israel’s numerous allies in both parties on Capitol Hill.

“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”

“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said. ….

But even a key defender of Obama’s Mideast policy, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), is seeking to narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama. And the unusual criticism by congressional Democrats of the popular president is a sign that it may take more than a transformative presidential election to change the domestic politics of Israel…. “

Ambassador Indyk Tells All: Pretty Amazing Interview

MJ Rosenberg writes: “Check out this interview from Yediot Achronoth. And, unconstrained by official responsibility, he actually says what he thinks. This interview will not make him more popular in Israel but it will confirm the view here that few, if any, in this country understand the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-American scenes better than Indyk.”….

On Syria

“Yes,” he said, “it could have been done differently. The joint strategy, ours and yours, was Syria first. At the Shepherdstown conference of January 2000, when we missed the chance to reach an
agreement with the Syrians, Arafat experienced a turnabout. Until then, he was afraid of being left behind. After the failure with the Syrians, Barak and Clinton—as President Bush rightfully said—courted Arafat desperately. Had there been an agreement with Syria, the equation would
have been different.

“I write in the book that for seven years, Hafez Assad was interested in the process, not the outcome, but before his death he underwent a change: he wanted to reach a deal. The fact is that over the years, he refused to send a senior figure to direct negotiations with Israel. Prior to his death, he sent his foreign minister Farouk Ashara to the talks.

“When Ashara came to Washington to negotiate with Barak, we dealt with the question why he did not shake his hand and why he condemned Israel in his speech, and ignored the most important thing he said: it is a dispute over borders, not an existential conflict. The Syrians were prepared for a series of compromises. People who read my book say that Barak did not have the courage to complete an agreement with the Syrians. Barak is a courageous man, there is no argument about that. The problem was the timing. The moment to finalize an agreement with Assad was between December 1999 and February 2000. Had Barak risen to the occasion at the right moment, it would have changed everything.”

You were recently in Damascus, we said, as the guest of Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. With what insight did you return from there? “There is greater flexibility than in the past in Syria,” he said. “Not on territory—it would be a mistake to think that they have changed their position. They will not cede a single centimeter of territory. But if Israel recognizes Syria’s sovereignty over the entire Golan, they will be willing to talk about what remains, including Israeli
communities under Syrian sovereignty.”…

Why didn’t Rabin complete the agreement with Syria, we asked.

“In October 1995,” he said, “a few weeks before the assassination, Rabin was in Washington. He said that he had to halt the negotiations with the Syrians, because he stood before elections. He doubted his ability to achieve a majority for withdrawal from the Golan. Rabin didn’t believe, but Netanyahu believed. His first intervention in politics here was an attempt to prevent, by means of the Senate, the stationing of US forces in the Golan—an important part of the agreement. “Netanyahu would come to me when I was ambassador, and question me about what was happening with the Golan. Why are you so concerned, I asked. Because if Rabin reaches an agreement on the Golan, he will win by a large majority, he said.

“That is why I say that Netanyahu will reach an agreement with Syria. The left wing will be with him because of the agreement, and as a right wing leader he will enjoy the support of the right wing.

“Netanyahu negotiated with Assad. Once again, behind our backs. He made more progress than Rabin and Peres. Assad calculated—like his son now—that Netanyahu could pass an agreement that the left wing would find it difficult to pass. That is the irony of the Middle East.”

Syria Looks to Iraq for an Economic Boost Wall Street Journal

….Syrian officials also have said that a railway line from the coastal city of Tartous to Umm Qasr port in southern Iraq is opening this month. The railway promises a faster and cheaper route to the Mediterranean for regional goods typically shipped through the Suez Canal.

Syria’s economic ties with Iraq were stronger in the past. Syrian exports to Iraq in 2007 were valued at $641 million, compared with about $2 billion before the U.S. invasion in 2003, according to official Iraqi figures…..

Damascus says it thinks it can use its ports on the Mediterranean to build an important trade route between Iraq and Europe. Iraq’s population of 28 million promises a booming market for Syrian and other foreign goods.

Baghdad and Damascus already have agreed to reopen the Kirkuk-Banias oil pipeline, which extends from oil fields in northern Iraq to the Syrian port of Banias.

The two countries also have held discussions about building a natural-gas pipeline from Iraq’s Western Akkas fields to Syria, which could be an attractive transit point for gas-starved Arab and European markets.

N. Korea to mass-produce Syria-provided missile By The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 02, 2009

SEOUL, June 2 (Kyodo) — North Korea has apparently agreed to mass-produce a small, Russian-designed missile that it recently obtained from Syria, according to a Western diplomatic source.

The missile in question is the Kornet anti-tank guided missile developed by KBP Instrument Design Bureau, a Russian government-backed defense contractor based in Tula, Russia, said the source, who closely monitors Syrian-North Korean affairs…. Japan and the United States… have pressed the U.N. Security Council to incorporate a complete ban on weapons exports in sanctions to be taken in response to the North’s second underground nuclear test conducted last week….

Iraq Oil Report: Kurds from Syria eye KRG 2009-06-01

Iraq’s Kurdish Region is becoming a favoured destination for an increasing number of Syrian Kurds deprived of nationality rights by authorities in Damascus. More than one thousand Syrian Kurds now survive in dire conditions in Moqoble camp, a…

Syria’s Kilo pledges to continue struggle Middle East on Line.

Syrian media workers say Journalists’ Union that should represent them is used to restrict them.

DAMASCUS – A few hours after his release from prison, Michel Kilo, a prominent Syrian intellectual and journalist, sat among his family and friends telling stories about his daily life while he was incarcerated.

Appearing in high spirits, Kilo – who spent three years in jail for “threatening national sentiment” and “inciting sectarian strife” – spoke jokingly about one cellmate who cooked better than all the women he had known. ….

The Debate Over the Makeup of the Next Government and the “Obstructing Third”

In recent months the March 14 Forces and the Hizbullah-led opposition have been arguing over the makeup of the post-elections government. The March 14 Forces reject the principle of the “obstructing third,” which Hizbullah obtained at the Doha summit following its violent May 7, 2008 takeover of Beirut. They characterize it as a dishonorable invention, which was meant to be a temporary solution, and which was imposed by force of arms. Moreover, they state that it paralyzes government activity, and that they will never again give a right of veto to the opposition.

The Hizbullah-led opposition, on the other hand, is demanding that the principle of the “obstructing third” be retained in the next government. In fact, its spokesmen have stated that even if Hizbullah wins, it will be willing to grant this right to the opposition led by the March 14 Forces.(9)

In a May 15, 2009 speech, which was aimed against the March 14 Forces, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah set out the Forces’ two options. The first option was that following the elections, a government would be assembled in which the opposition would have the right of veto, no matter which camp ended up in the opposition. The second option was to hold the elections using a different method: proportional representation elections in which all Lebanon will be a single electoral zone.(10) In such a case, the Hizbullah-led opposition would obviously win, because today Shi’ites comprise the country’s largest ethnic group. In effect, the options with which Nasrallah presented the Lebanese were either a government in which the Hizbullah camp has the right of veto, or a change in the electoral system that will produce a government in which the Hizbullah camp has a majority.

My new phone # in Damascus is 963-992473085.

Kerry’s Unusual Role in Mediating U.S.-Syria Relations
By David Ignatius | June 1, 2009 | Washington Post,

The long-stalled U.S. diplomatic engagement with Syria is moving forward — thanks to an unusual bit of mediation by Sen. John Kerry.

A mini-breakthrough in U.S.-Syria relations came Sunday in a telephone conversation between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, according to U.S. and Syrian sources. Moallem said that Syria would welcome a visit by U.S. Central Command officers to Damascus this month to discuss joint efforts to stabilize Iraq. In return, Clinton promised to develop a joint “road map” for improving bilateral relations between the two countries.

Kerry reportedly played a key role in breaking the logjam between the two countries, which had worsened after the Obama administration announced last month that it was renewing sanctions against Damascus under the Syria Accountability Act. The Syrians had been expecting that move, but they were upset by a presidential statement accompanying the renewal, which repeated harsh Bush administration language that said Syria posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” The Syrians said that unless this sharp language was withdrawn and the bilateral relationship improved, they wouldn’t provide the security assistance that Centcom wanted.

Enter the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

According to Syrian diplomatic sources, Kerry and Syrian President Bashar Assad have been developing a relationship of “respect and friendship,” including a long private dinner between the two men and their wives at the Narenj restaurant in the old city of Damascus when Kerry was there in March.

Kerry is said to have called Assad twice over the past two weeks to explore ways to improve relations; at the same time, he was talking to the Obama White House and State Department. In these and other conversations, apparently, the gap between the two countries was narrowed. Kerry’s office had no comment today.

The result of this mediation was Sunday’s carefully scripted conversation between Clinton and Moallem. Clinton told her Syrian counterpart, “We will be prepared to discuss with you all issues related to Syrian-American relations,” according to one transcript of the conversation. The U.S. pledged to “focus our efforts on forming a new sort of relationship,” according to this transcript. There was no pledge about when the U.S. will send an ambassador back to Damascus; the ambassador was withdrawn after the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, an attack for which many Lebanese blamed Syria.

The road map toward better relations will be discussed when Sen. George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy for the Middle East, visits Damascus, probably this week. He will be the most senior U.S. official to visit Syria since relations went into the deep freeze three four years ago.

The Syria opening is part of a larger effort toward engagement by the Obama administration in the Middle East. President Obama will take that message to the heart of the Arab world Thursday in a Cairo speech that will discuss America’s desire for better relations, including contact with longtime adversaries, such as Syria and Iran.

Kerry’s role in all this is intriguing for two reasons: First, it shows that the former Democratic presidential candidate is carving out a role for himself as a foreign-policy player — courageously taking on issues that are sensitive in political and policy terms. Second, it shows a fluid and creative foreign-policy process in the Obama administration, in which people outside the White House inner circle are able to get the president’s attention and push the envelope.

by EHSANI2

(posted by Alex)

According to a recently released book on Cheney’s term at the White House, Middle East foreign policy was conducted on the premise that, “the U.S. must not exchange tangible benefits for the promise of regime behavior change in the future.”

Barton Gellman is a prolific writer who won a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports that he wrote for the Washington Post. The book entitled “Angler” was written as a sequel to the newspaper series. It is a must read for those who want to learn more about the Bush-Cheney White House.

The U.S. policy towards Syria is predicated on defining Syria as a weak and undemocratic pariah state. The Bush White House formalized the process by creating the axis of evil club. Though Syria was not a formal member of the club, Cheney may have thought of Damascus as part of a “nexus”, a term that the VP preferred according to Mr. Gellman.

Democracy versus dictatorship:

The democratic U.S. governing process uses a system of checks and balances to avoid the abuse of power by a single branch of government especially by the Presidency.

The events of September 11th however, convinced the sitting President at the time that the country is simply too democratic for these trying and extraordinary times. Mr. Gellman explains in painstaking details how Cheney’s core understanding of government changed once he convinced himself that the country faces an existential risk. In a post September 11th world, Cheney thought that the presidency ought by rights to function as an elected dictatorship. Seeking power without limit became the White House driving force.

Set below is a particularly interesting paragraph from the book:

“With Bush’s consent, Cheney unleashed foreign intelligence agencies to spy at home. He gave them legal cover to conduct what he called ‘robust interrogation’ of captured enemies, using calculated cruelty to break their will. At Cheney’s initiative, the United States stripped terror suspects of long-established rights under domestic and international law, building a new legal edifice under exclusive White House ownership.”

The fact is that once leaders convince themselves that they face existential risks, abuse of power becomes the norm. This notion epitomizes the way Israeli leaders justify their brutality against Palestinians. To them, the outside world simply does not understand the existential risks that only they can comprehend.

Similarly, when faced with its own existential risk following the uprising of the Moslem Brotherhood, the Syrian leadership felt fully justified in using all means at its disposal to stop the insurgency. Other countries in the region have behaved similarly when faced with the same risks. The Bush White House started walking the same path when confronted with similar risks. Domestic wiretapping and NSA surveillance was soon taking a shape not too unfamiliar to citizens of the Middle East and other “undemocratic” nations.

Weak versus strong:

Syria is often branded as a pariah state which is too weak to exchange tangible benefits with.  There is no doubt that Syria lacks the demographic card of Egypt or the financial might of Saudi Arabia. Aware of this, Syria’s leadership has had to improvise and keep pulling rabbits out of its hat to survive in this region. In spite of her apparent weaknesses, Syria has had measurable success in continuing to find rabbits to pull. Undoubtedly, her Iranian rabbit has proved to be her most successful trump card over the past 4 decades.

Rather astonishingly, Damascus is often asked to somehow give up on this card and “flip” to the other side.

But, if Syria is as weak as she is portrayed, why would she give up her cards and weaken herself for the hope of American promises?

The fact is that the new White House must hit the reset button when it comes to dealing with Syria in particular and the region in general.

The sanctions:

This past Thursday, former President Bush made his first major speech since leaving office. He of course defended the policies of his Administration as he thought the country faced an imminent attack. He also thought that the U.S. and its allies are locked in a long-term war with ideological fanatics, and that the war has many fronts.

“We should care about poverty overseas, for our own self-interest”, he said. “Ideologues can only recruit when they find hopeless people”.

If poverty leads to despair and terrorism, how can the U.S. justify economic sanctions on countries and expect this to help?

In a newly released study, a typical Syrian household includes six people, living on an average of $318 a month. While the sanctions are by no means the sole reason for economic underachievement, it is not difficult for the populace to be convinced that it is in this predicament because of the country’s resistance and the resultant sanctions against them.

The new President must lift the economic sanctions immediately. These have done nothing to harm the Syrian leadership. They have, however, turned more ordinary Syrians against the U.S. Washington must also stop referring to Damascus as a pariah state that is somehow different than the “moderate allies” in the shape of the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Syria must be brought to the table without “flipping” preconditions. If Mr. Obama truly believes that Bush and Cheney’s foreign policy was misguided, he must start with doing away with the first guiding principal of that Administration. The U.S. must look for ways to offer tangible benefits to foreign nations that have everything to lose once they are forced to give up what little cards they have up their sleeve.

Mr. George Mitchell is set to visit Damascus as the rapprochement between Washington and Damascus enters a new phase.

Hitting the reset button before Mr. Mitchell steps off his flight would be a good way to start.