We learned from the Palestinians
By Zvi Bar’el

….[Israelis], it seems, like the Palestinians, know just when the time is right to miss an opportunity. When America has finally matured, we are using Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as a defensive shield against any initiative.

As Israel continues to dig in, the region is carrying on with its regular agenda. A new strategic alliance is emerging right in front of us. It comprises Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. In this alliance, Russia holds the cards and the United States, which stood by watching under George W. Bush, is trying to find room at the table.

Baghdad Pact meeting in Tehran presided over by Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi, (at far end of table). Presiding over the meeting is Major General Isakander Mirza, (at head of table), President of Pakistan. Seated on Mirza's right is Turkish Premier Adnan Menderes. Seated on the Shah's right is Nour Said of Iraq. Pakistan;s Premier H. S. Sudrawardy is on the Shah's left.

The convenient division between “moderate” and “extremist” Arab states is no longer useful. Friendly Qatar has become an ally of Syria; Saudi Arabia, which claimed the patent for the Arab initiative, is sending Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal to Damascus to rebuild the Arab alliance. Syria, along with Iran, Iraq and Turkey, plans to set up a joint electricity grid, while Iran is being described as an enemy of the Arabs. The Arabs? Except for Syria, Qatar, Iraq and Sudan. The old arrangement that Israel thought it could navigate is falling apart. The bad guys and good guys are changing roles, and they are dragging the Western countries alone.

Who is an ally and who is an enemy? Who is the blind one here? Washington, which does not see where terrorism comes from, or Israel, which remains preoccupied with the locks on the gates to Gaza and the amounts of sugar, salt, concrete and iron to be allowed in? The United States, which is trying to adopt new methods against the Iranian threat and offer an alliance to Russia, or Israel, which is fumbling about trying to decide whether to procure an American anti-missile system or develop an anti-Qassam missile at a cost of $1 million each?

And what an achievement for Israel. The United States conditioned the transferring of its contribution to Gaza’s reconstruction to the release of Gilad Shalit. And what if the U.S. does not transfer the funds? How much will there be for reconstruction? How much is $5.5 billion minus $900 million? Still double what the Gaza Strip needs.

And what will happen if the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas takes place and these two enemies set up a unity government, dispatch ambassadors to European countries and hold a dialogue? What if the Europeans sign agreements with the Palestinians and invite their representatives to set up offices in their capitals? What will happen to all this achievement? Britain is already ready to talk to Hezbollah; true, “only” with its political wing, as if it’s possible to separate the organization’s military and political wings. Which half of Hassan Nasrallah is Britain planning to talk to? And what about Hamas? After all, it, too, will soon find a European interlocutor.

Does anyone understand what is happening here? Perhaps the Western countries, who are fed up with the unintelligible conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, or Israel, which is keeping score on anyone who boycotts its academics and angry with those who undermine its definitions of who the enemy is.

But here comes a chance to put forth a new vision, to raise a new flag. In three weeks, the Arab League is meeting in Qatar. This is normally a ceremony void of substance, but twice in the past it set the tone. Once in Khartum, in 1967, when it declared the “three Nos” against Israel, and once in Beirut, in 2002, when the Arab initiative proposing recognition of Israel was approved. In 35 years the Arabs’ strategic concept has changed. It can change again in a month if Israel presents a new concept, clearly and loudly.

But we better not hold our breath. We have learned well how to miss opportunities; that is what happens when you spend so much time with the Palestinians.

Turkish FM: Turkey trying to ease U.S.-Iran tension By Reuters

Price to Woo Syria Could Be Steep, By Jay Solomon and Nada Raad, WSJ

U.S. envoys held weekend talksSyria Comment › Edit — WordPress in Damascus, hoping to enlist Syria in Mideast stabilization efforts, but Syria’s president is expected to demand a heavy price in return. Mr. Assad has his own priorities. In particular, he wants Washington to push Israel for concessions over the disputed Golan Heights region.

Clinton: U.S. to push for Israel-Syria reconciliation
By Natasha Mozgovaya and Barak Ravid

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed during her visit to Ankara that the United States would like to see a resumption of the talks between Israel and Syria. However, in closed talks Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu said he prefers to give priority to the Palestinian track over the Syrian one. The importance of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel “cannot be overstated,” Clinton said at the end of a meeting with her Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan.

The focus is on Syria, but the key is really Iran (March 09. 2009)
By Phil Sands, The National

…Syria’s ability to avoid making a stark choice will depend on US willingness to compromise with Iran, said Joshua Landis, a Syria specialist and director at the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

“Traditionally, the US has sought to weaken both Iran and Syria, to lock them out of regional security discussions and deny their importance,” he said.

“If the US learns to offer them security – that is, stop threatening to overturn their regimes – and to compromise with them, then there is hope for an accommodation of interests in the region that could dramatically reduce tensions and radicalism. Of course Iran and Syria would have to meet the US half way and change some of their behaviour as well.”

US Envoys Hold ‘Constructive’ Talks in Syria (07 March 2009)
By Edward Yeranian, Cairo, Voice of America

Private sector fills Syria’s learning gap By Anna Fifield in Deir Atiah, Financial Time, 2009-03-04.

12 private institutions have sprung up since the sector was opened in 2001, and another dozen are in the works.

Zaina had two options: she could study engineering for free at a state university, or she could study medicine, her preferred subject, at a private institution for $10,000 a year. The choice was simple.

“I didn’t want to be an engineer, I wanted to be a doctor,” the 18-year-old shrugs, sitting in the cafeteria at Kalamoon University, one of the private institutions that has opened in Syria to meet rocketing demand for tertiary education.

More and more young Syrians are finding themselves in this situation. As student numbers have risen, the entry requirements at state universities have become increasingly tough, with baccalaureate grades in the 90s needed to enrol in many classes, and 99 for medicine.

“I feel guilty because I could have done better in my baccalaureate,” says Zaina, a second-year student whose doctor parents are funding her education. “I want to do well here because my parents are paying so much for this.”

Syria, a self-styled “social market economy”, has been gradually allowing the private sector to play a greater role since Bashar al-Assad assumed the leadership from his father in 2000.

While his presidency has not ushered in the “Damascus spring” of greater personal freedoms that many were hoping for, it has led to some economic liberalisation in sectors including banking, insurance and education.

With the four state colleges full to overflowing – Damascus University (pictured above) alone has more than 120,000 students – 12 private institutions have sprung up since the sector was opened in 2001, and another dozen are in the works.

“The government does not have enough resources to finance education for all these people, so it had two options,” says Samir Seifan, an independent economist. “It could encourage Syrians to go abroad or it could encourage the private sector to get involved.”… (read the rest)

Addendum (Monday, March 10, 2009) Salma al-Shami published this article in Forward , Towards a “Knowledge-Based Economy” in Qatar: Can Syria Follow Suit? comparing private universities in Syria and the Emirates. Here is the part on Syria.

[…] While Syria is showing signs of growth, its increased consumerism alone cannot be taken for comprehensive economic development. The “Beirutization” of Damascus has become a buzzword describing a new high-end consumer landscape dominated by an influx of luxury goods. The future sustainability and success of this import-driven model of development is questionable, particularly because it is not occurring in tandem with substantial investment in educational reform.

“Until recently, higher education in Syria was oriented towards graduating civil services and state enterprise managers,” explained Dr. Nabil Sukkar, Managing Director of the Syrian Consulting Bureau. “But in the past two years, the government started to change the strategy of higher education in the direction of responding to the needs of society, the productive sector and the labor market.” He noted that Syria’s private universities are relatively new and just beginning to respond to the needs of the market.

This process faces several challenges. First, students coming from secondary institutions where instruction is in Arabic do not always have the English-language and analytical skills that would allow them to thrive at an institution where instruction is in English. In addition to teaching their course-specific subject matters, faculty members must take extra measures to accommodate varying levels of English-language competency among students. Dr. Sami Moubayed, a lecturer at Syria’s Al Kalamoon University where instruction is in English, has offered to read practice paragraphs his students send him and correct linguistic mistakes.

Second, attendance costs are high. While the World Bank estimates that Syria’s per capita income is US $1200, on average, a student in the School of Diplomatic Sciences and International Relations at Al Kalamoon University will pay about US $4000 a year in tuition. Absent a program of loans from banks or from the universities themselves, the education is only available to the elite.

Third, private Syrian universities face questions of accreditation, which is linked to the presence of qualified faculty, a rigorous curriculum and adequate facilities.

“It is not enough to say to say we have private universities,” said Rime Allaf, an Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. “We have to make sure they are adhering to some kind of academic and ethical agenda and curriculum.”

Private universities in Syria do not have complete autonomy over their internal processes and cannot make all necessary improvements to their curricula independently. This limited flexibility curtails the benefits students can potentially reap from their education and in turn hinders socioeconomic development….

Also, read this earlier story by Landis on Syria’s private universities. Or this: Students speak for merits of cool Damascus – Nov-04

World Economic Forum names Syrian Abdalsalam Haykal as Young Entrepreneur, 2009-03-07

Abdulsalam Haykal, founder and CEO of Transtek Information Systems and Haykal Media, was selected as a Young Global Leader by WEF’s selection committee, composed of top media leaders and chaired by Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abullah of Jordan.

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum said that Haykal’s nomination was “in recognition of [his] record of professional accomplishments, [his] commitment to society and [his] potential to contribute to shaping the future of the world through [his] inspiring leadership.”

Haykal, who is Forward Magazine’s publisher, said in a statement, “I’m very happy to have this honor bestowed on me by the World Economic Forum. It does not give recognition to me only, but to all the young men and women of Syria, who have taken upon themselves the commitment to lead their societies through serious and creative initiatives.

Haykal is considered to be one of Syria’s leading media and technology entrepreneurs. As president of the Syrian Young Entrepreneurs Association (SYEA), Haykal has been active in advancing new concepts in the business and society in Syria, including corporate social responsibility.

Haykal advocates education as the most effective development vehicle in the Middle East; He is a trustee of the American University of Beirut, and of Kalamoon University in Syria, and founding board member of Tumouhi Scholarship Fund, an NGO. The list includes the CEOs of YouTube, Facebook, and Skype Technologies, in addition to Ferrari’s racecar driver Michael Schumacher, and 200 other leaders from government, NGOs, business, and academia in 71 countries.

The Geneva-based World Economic Forum (WEF) named a Syrian entrepreneur to be among 200 most distinguished young leaders in 2009.

Defending the Faith: Battle Over a Christian Monastery Tests Turkey’s Tolerance of Minorities.” By ANDREW HIGGINS in WSJ

….Battling to hang on to the monastic lands, Bishop Timotheus Samuel Aktas is fortifying his defenses. He’s hired two Turkish lawyers — one Muslim, one Christian — and mobilized support from foreign diplomats, clergy and politicians.

Also giving a helping hand, says the bishop, is Saint Gabriel, a predecessor as abbot who died in the seventh century: “We still have four of his fingers.” Locked away for safekeeping, the sacred digits are treasured as relics from the past — and a hex on enemies in the present. The outcome of the land dispute is now in the hands of a Turkish court….

Acting Assistant Secretary Feltman Briefs on Meetings With Syrian …
QUESTION: Hisham Melham.
AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hi, Hisham.
QUESTION: What would you expect the Syrians to do as a prelude for higher-level meetings and a return of the American ambassador to Damascus?
AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, Hisham, this was not a meeting where the Syrians set up benchmarks for us or we set up benchmarks for the Syrians……

Syria could be softening stance on dissidents, Phil Sands, The National, March 7, 2009 (Thanks: Jefferson Gray)

Dr Ammar Qurabi, head of the Syrian National Organisation for Human Rights

There are indications that Damascus may be loosening – ever so slightly – its iron grip on political dissent….

“There have been minor changes, small signs of improvements in certain areas,” Ammar Qurabi, the head of the National Organisation for Human Rights in Syria (NOHRS), said in an interview. “They are subtle things and they may mean that a new approach is coming. Or they may mean nothing.” Last week there was a demonstration by Kurds in Syria’s northern border region. Whereas in the past such events have resulted in rioting, shootings and widespread arrests, this one apparently ended in a peaceful and unusual way.

“About 50 people were rounded up and taken to see the area security chief,” said Mr Qurabi, who has contacts with opposition and pro-democracy groups across the country. “He was respectful and told them, ‘None of you are under arrest, I am meeting you as a delegation, tell me what you want and I will move your statement up to the president’. “All of the demonstrators were released after two hours.”….

“Some of the opposition didn’t want the EU to sign agreements with Syria until activists were released from prison,” Mr Qurabi said. “My opinion is that good ties with the US and Europe will positively affect Syrian domestic life.

“After 2005, when relations were bad, Syria was dealing with the political opposition and domestic issues in a hard way. The regime thinks, ‘We are already on the blacklist so we have nothing to lose if we crack down.’

“When there are better ties, the regime is more comfortable and doesn’t feel under threat it will be softer, even if only as a decoration. They won’t make the improvements I want, but it will maybe be something. They will count to 10 before arresting dissidents, they will put people through the courts, rather than just into prison.”

See this earlier story by Human Rights Watch: Syrian authorities should abolish the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC), a special court that exists outside the ordinary …

National Public Radio: Music Interviews & Profiles
A Syrian Frequent Flier, Clarinet In Hand

Syrian clarinetist and composer Kinan Azmeh is one of many artists from the Arab world performing at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. Azmeh has played with the Syrian National Symphony Orchestra and has released three albums with his ensemble Hewar.

Predictions are that the US will announce an ambassador for Syria in the coming weeks and military sharing will begin. The only thing that could forestall this is if the US decides to withhold an ambassador until the June 7 elections in Lebanon are completed to America’s satisfaction. This would be silly, however, because the language coming out of Foggy Bottom is that diplomacy is not a reward doled out for good behavior, or as Mr. Feltman put it on Friday while speaking in Lebanon: engaging Syria “is a tool of our diplomacy” and “not a reward.” Rather the US seeks “to use engagement in order to address issues of mutual concern.” Washington has a lot of mutual concerns with Syria: Arab-Israeli Peace, a Palestinian unity government, border issues with Iraq, Lebanon, intelligence sharing on al-Qaida, Kurds, relations with Iran, arming Hizbullah, and the list goes on. The need to engage is BIG.

Jeffrey Feltman did not meet Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president. Feltman, acting assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and Dan Shapiro of the White House's National Security Council, met Walid al-Moualem, the Syrian foreign minister, on Saturday. "We had constructive, comprehensive talks today," Feltman told reporters. "We found a lot of common ground."

Rami Khouri in the Daily Star (Thanks FLC)

“…What we have going on, I suspect, is that the two leading proponents of Western arrogance in the form of colonialism and neocolonialism – the United States and the United Kingdom – have recognized that their approach has failed, and that they are better off having normal diplomatic talks and negotiations with the three leading centers of resistance to them, namely Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. The pace of change in American policies, in particular, has been impressive since President Barack Obama took office six weeks ago, though it will take some time for the results of the current shifts to materialize….

One of the fascinating sub-plots of what is occurring is the temporary sidelining of Israel, which had long seriously influenced, if not often effectively dictated, American contacts and policies in the Middle East. It is noteworthy that the US and UK in various degrees are talking with Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, when Israel had worked overtime for some years to prevent such normal contacts. It is probably only a matter of time before the US, UK and others open talks with Hamas also….

What does this mean? For one thing, it means that the United States is becoming more humble,….. this means the US is also engaging with the rest of the world on a more normal basis, which requires negotiating relationships with other countries based on mutual interests…”

AP

Mr. Assad has said that he has long wanted to improve ties with the United States but that he was hampered by the Bush administration.

Speaking in Lebanon on Friday, Mr. Feltman said that engaging Syria “is a tool of our diplomacy” and “not a reward.”

He said that the United States had a long list of bilateral and regional concerns with Syria. The visit “is an opportunity for us to start addressing these concerns and using engagement as a tool to promote our objectives in the region,” he said.

Imad Moustapha, Syria’s ambassador to the United States, said that he noticed a change in the Americans’ tone in his recent meeting with Mr. Feltman in Washington. “They’ve given up on the idea of Syria has to do this and that,” he said, characterizing current discussions as an “in-depth exploratory dialogue” by the Americans after the failure of their past policies.

Naharnet (AFP)

“We found a lot of common ground today,” the acting secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs said without elaborating.

But he struck a conciliatory tone.

“The Syrians have concerns with us as well. I’m sure the Syrians will be looking at choices we will be making in the future just as we will be looking at choices Syria is making,” he said.

Feltman said the talks in Damascus “built on” the February 26 meeting he had in Washington with Syrian ambassador to the United States Imad Mustafa.

He added they were “consistent with the message” from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who “have stated the desire to use engagement with all countries in the region in order to address issues of mutual concern.”

The high-level visit to Damascus was a “concrete example of that commitment,” he added.

Feltman called for patience when asked if the Obama administration wanted to revive Turkish-brokered indirect talks that began between Syria and Israel last year — to which the administration of former President George W. Bush was lukewarm.

“The United States wants a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace,” Feltman said, stressing peace and not process.

“There will be a Syrian-Israel track at some point.”

But “at this point, though, we need to be a bit patient” as Israel worked on forming a new government after elections last month, he said.

George Mitchell, the main Middle East envoy, was focusing for now on the Palestinian-Israeli track of the negotiations, but “his mandate does include comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace,” Feltman said.

“So we do want to see forward momentum on the Syrian-Israeli track at the time when the parties are ready … for this.”

Besides the envoys and Muallem, the talks involved the U.S. charge d’affaires in Damascus Maura Connelly, Syria’s deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad and Bussaina Shaaban, President Bashar al-Assad’s adviser on political and media affairs.

The group met for three and a half hours before Feltman had a private meeting with Muallem.

Feltman added that he and Shapiro would return to Beirut on Sunday for more talks with Lebanese authorities before heading back to the United States via Europe.

Jumblat is Not Worried About U.S.-Syrian Dialogue

U.S.: We Will Watch How British Contact with Hizbullah Proceeds

Israeli Town Says No to SLA Members

BBC News

Syria’s ambassador to Britain, Sami Khiyami, told the BBC before Saturday’s meeting: “Syria is the gateway to peace in the Middle East.

“I think the American government, Mr Obama personally, has to take care of the aspirations of the Arab peoples and not only of the Israeli people.”

The last senior US official to visit Damascus was Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, in January 2005.

The choice of envoys seems to signal that Washington is taking a tough but serious approach to its engagement, says BBC’s correspondent.

Dan Shapiro’s bio is here on Sourcewatch: “Shapiro’s ascendance coincided with Obama’s emphasis on proving his pro-Israel credentials in the form of several speeches in front of Jewish audiences. …  He is a longtime political operative in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, particularly with Democratic members of Congress. Shapiro worked briefly at the United States National Security Council during the Clinton administration under Sandy Berger. He then worked first as legislative advisor and then deputy chief (mostly on foreign policy issues) to Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). He is touted as: “… a foreign policy specialist with particular expertise in the Middle East.” [1] In 2007, Shapiro emerged as an advisor/strategist (“work on Middle East issues and Jewish outreach”) for Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and was named vice president of Timmons and Company, a Washington D.C. lobbying firm with cable-industry clients.

James D. Besser writing February 16, 2007, for The Jewish Week outlines the effect Shapiro’s recruitment will have:

With millions of campaign dollars at stake as well as votes in a handful of key primary states, the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is poised to dramatically increase its Jewish outreach. That includes the recruitment of top Jewish donors and advisers, and an expected major speech on Israel and the Middle East that a Democratic insider said “will set the baseline and establish Sen. Obama as a reliable, strong supporter of Israel.”

Financial Times

“Thirty years ago, Syria was lagging behind but today the Syrian elite is sick and tired of that,” says Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma. “Their hearts are not in the socialist struggle, their hearts are in getting the stock market up and running and getting rich.” Landis says Syria would not suddenly stop supporting Hamas and Hizbollah but a deal could be struck in which Damascus renounced support for Iraqi insurgents – now that the Obama administration has set a troop withdrawal timetable – in return for the lifting of US sanctions.

John Kerry seems to have his finger on the pulse of US – Syrian relations. His visit to Damascus last month preceded improved relations. Kerry is now saying that the US can “loosen sanctions on Syria” in order to nudge along improved relations in the region. He continues to see improved ties with Syria as a means to isolate and weaken Iran, but believes this need not occure as a precondition.

Haaretz quotes Kerry: “We should have no illusion that Syria will immediately end its ties to Iran,” Kerry said, “but that shouldn’t threaten us as long as their relationship ceases to destabilize the region.” “It benefits Syria if Assad looks west for new relationships,” Kerry said. “The sanctions can always be tightened again if Syria backtracks,” he said. 

One friend wrote me this:

John Kerry effectively said to President Assad: “are you serious about Iran? We all know they want nuclear weapons. Are you really going to stand with Iran against the world on this? The time is coming for you to choose.”

 

Apparently President Assad urged the Americans not to force Iran alone into a corner on the issue, saying it would be counter-productive. 

 

The Americans are angry that Syria didn’t ‘give’ them anything concrete and, as you know, the Syrian’s felt the same. Despite the upbeat-ish public statements I got the feeling no-one really felt upbeat. And also the feeling – I suppose unsurprisingly – that the Americans still believe they are fundamentally right on Israel/Hamas/Hizbollah and that Syria is fundamentally wrong and does not have a legitimate case, even on its own terms.

 

It is easy to believe that the Americans are not serious about a peace deal and are working on “senario two” — damage control and seeing what they can get without the Golan and only sanctions on the table.

 

Kerry also said something to Assad to the effect that; if you come clean with the IAEA about your nuclear programme, we can make that problem go away. Do the right thing.

 

All of which sounds less like a meaningful conversation, and more like the Americans issuing orders. Perhaps not a new era of dialogue and liberal foreign policy after all?

Here is my op-ed in the National

Friends in need
By Joshua Landis
The National – Op-Ed (March 6, 2009)

See:Kerry calls for easing US sanctions against Syria

What distinguished Kerry’s speech, delivered at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution, were the specifics of how far the United States should go in achieving these goals. He left his meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad convinced that it was time for a direct U.S. role in Israel-Syria talks, which the Bush administration had resisted.

The talks could be nudged along by loosening sanctions against Syria, Kerry said, and by not expecting an immediate transformation in Damascus.

“Loosening certain sanctions in return for verifiable changes in behavior could actually benefit U.S. businesses, and the sanctions can always be tightened again if Syria backtracks,” Kerry said.

Notwithstanding “Syria’s long-term interests” being with the West, Kerry said, “We should have no illusions that Syria will immediately end its ties with Iran.” Much of the rationalization for U.S. engagement with Syria until now has been the prospect of peeling it away from Iranian influence.

On West Bank settlements, Kerry said U.S. policy opposing expansion for decades has “existed on paper alone.”

“Nothing will do more to make clear our seriousness about turning the page than demonstrating — with actions rather than words — that we are serious about Israel freezing settlement activity in the West Bank,” Kerry said.

Assad invited to Saudi Arabia
04-03-2009, al-Bawaba

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal was in the Syrian capital of Damascus on Wednesday, and held talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, indicating an improvement in the relations between the two Arab countries. Syrian state-run news agency SANA quoted Assad as telling the Saudi Minister that “Arabs should find a way to handle their disareements cordially.”

During the meeting, Prince Saud also extended an invitation on behalf of Saudi King Abdullah to Assad for visiting the kingdom, the Syrian state-run agency reported.

Building healthy ties with Syria: Prince Saud
Saudi Gazette, 27 February 2009

Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Foreign Minister, said Thursday the Kingdom wanted to build “healthy” new ties with Syria, two days after his Damascus counterpart paid a landmark visit to Riyadh.

“There will be other visits between Syria and Saudi Arabia,” Prince Saud told reporters following talks with his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner. “We hope for a reconciliation between Syria and Saudi Arabia on healthy foundations,” he said.

“Divergences on Arab issues are behind us, buried,” Prince Saud said and described Tuesday’s visit by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moallem “very positive.”…

In response to a question, the Saudi Foreign Minister described the statements by Iran over the Kingdom of Bahrain as worrying….

“Britain will talk to Hizbullah,” in Haaretz
“We should have no illusion that Syria will immediately end its ties to Iran,” Kerry said, “but that shouldn’t threaten us as long as their relationship ceases to destabilize the region.”

“It benefits Syria if Assad looks west for new relationships,” Kerry said.

“The sanctions can always be tightened again if Syria backtracks,” he said.

Evidence mounts of Syrian nuclear cover-up: U.S. Reuters

Les échanges commerciaux entre la Syrie et les États-Unis ont atteint leur plus haut niveau depuis 16 ans4 mars 2009

Selon les chiffres publiés par le bureau des statistiques US, les échanges entre la Syrie et les Etats-Unis ont atteint 760,9 millions de dollars en 2008, en hausse de 61 % sur un an.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad calls for stronger alliance with Syria
Khaleej Times, 1 March 2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday called for a stronger alliance with Syria in a bid to resist Israel and its allies over the Palestinian crisis.
In a meeting with visiting Syrian Prime Minister Mahmoud Naji Otri, Ahmadinejad praised the two countries’ position on the international and regional issues, particularly the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

‘Recent developments in the world proved that Iran and Syria were moving on the right track insisting on the need of resistance against enemies,’ the Iranian leader said.

Tehran does not recognize Israel and is the main supporter of the Islamist Hamas movement which controls Gaza.

Israel and the United States have accused Iran of training Hamas militants in Gaza as well as providing them financing and weapons. Tehran however insists it only gives spiritual and political support to anti-Israel militia groups both in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.

‘If Iran and Syria have an eminent position in the region, it is because of their resistance based on their correct decisions,’ Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the website of state television IRIB.

Iranian Vice President Parviz Davoudi, in a separate meeting with Otri, urged Damascus to be more on alert about their political enemies’ tricks, saying: ‘Both countries (Iran and Syria) should be active in supporting unity among all Palestinian groups and the reconstruction of Gaza.’…

Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by major Western countries, has recently agreed to conciliatory talks with the secular Palestinian Fatah movement, whose representatives were expelled from Gaza by Hamas in June 2007.

Syria eases visa restrictions on Iraqi tourists

Damascus is easing entry visa restrictions to Iraqi tourists after 17 months of strict regulations that barred most from entering. SANA says the Syrian Immigration Department’s new regulations require tourists to be part of a group and enter the country only through Damascus International Airport. Tourists should have a return ticket, at least $1,000 in cash, and should leave their passports at the tourist office after arrival. The Syrian move comes after the improvement of security conditions in Iraq and amid an international financial crisis that makes Syria in need for tourists and money.

US Overtures Could Force Syria Into Tough Choices
Reuters, 1 March 2009

U.S. President Barack Obama has signalled he wants a dialogue with Syria that could further rehabilitate Damascus internationally but also force it to choose whether to loosen ties with Iran and anti-Israeli groups.

“If the (Obama) administration could somehow engineer the strategic realignment of Syria — away from Iran toward the peace camp — it would prove a real blow to regional militants,” David Schenker, a senior fellow at Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in a research note.

Syria would find it harder to maintain backing for militant groups and its longstanding alliance with Iran if the United States normalised ties and sought to broker peace between Israel and Syria, as it did for almost a decade until 2000.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week it was too early to predict a thaw in ties after a senior U.S. official met Imad Mustafa, Syria’s ambassador in Washington.

But Mustafa said the meeting could herald a new chapter in ties and that Syria was open to discuss all issues.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said direct U.S. involvement is vital in any peace talks with Israel aimed as securing the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights…

TURKEY/ISRAEL: Gaza tensions strain relations
Oxford Analytica, 27 February 2009

EVENT: Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on February 24 chided Israeli prime minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu for disregarding the Palestinians’ right to statehood and repeated his call to include Hamas in talks.

SIGNIFICANCE: Erdogan’s continued support for Hamas, and his criticism of Israel’s likely next leader, will hamper efforts by both sides to contain the fallout from his high-profile clash with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month and further strain ties between the two.

ANALYSIS: The Turkish public’s reaction to Israel’s war in Gaza has been for the most part one of outrage. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has reflected this by engaging in harsh criticism of Israel and expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people — and therefore with Hamas). Tension between the two countries peaked on January 29 in Davos, where Erdogan stormed out of a panel discussion on the Gaza crisis following a strongly-worded response to Peres’s lengthy defence of Israel’s offensive.

MEDIATION EFFORTS: Part of Erdogan’s anger stems from the fact that Israel launched its operation on the heels of Turkey’s efforts to initiate direct talks between Syria and Israel.

DAMAGE CONTROL: Immediately after the spat, both countries rushed to strike a reconciliatory note.

CONCLUSION: Erdogan’s vocal support for Hamas and his temperamental behaviour on the international scene may jeopardise the AKP government’s delicate relationship with the West. However, on the domestic front, Erdogan’s indignant attitude towards Israel has resonated with the majority of the Turkish people and boosted his popularity at a crucial moment ahead of next month’s local elections…

Israel: Syria’s demand to get munitions from seized ship ‘insolent’

[Landis Comment] Clinton’s deliberate handshake with Syria’s Foreign Minister at the Gaza donor Conference promises a thaw in Syria-US relations. The U.S. will also send two officials to Syria for talks, Clinton said in a press conference in Jerusalem today with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. “We have no way to predict what the future of our relations might be, but we want to engage in a discussion” she said in relation to the talks with Syria. She said that one of the officials was from the State Department and the other from the White House.

All the same, some things seem not to be changing. The US is still seeking to “flip” Syria away from Iran, which HIllary doubts can be pursuaded to fall in with America’s regional security designs. (More promising would be an effort to engage both, rather than trying to split them). Hillary has set out strict preconditions for US support for Israeli-Syrian dialogue. Syria must cut relations with its allies, Hizbullah and Hamas. The demand that Syria abandon its supporters and friends before entering into full dialogue with the US is no more likely to work under Obama than it did under Bush. Why? Because Syria fears that the US will again fail to deliver Israel, as it did under Bill Clinton in 2000. Netanyahu will decline to return the Golan, as he promised during his campaign, and Syria will be left without a deal and with with no friends or regional leverage. Syria suspects this is, in fact,  Washington’s desired outcome – to weaken Syria.

Clinton Shakes Syria’s Hand: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shook hands with her Syrian counterpart Monday as the two attended a conference in Egypt on rebuilding the Gaza Strip. The simple handshake before lunch was the highest-level contact between the two countries in years.

Clinton stopped in front of Muallem, shook his hand and exchanged a few words with him, the reporters said. “With respect to talking with the Syrian foreign minister, again I will reiterate that in consultation with our friends and allies, our partners, we are reaching out to determine what, if any, areas of cooperation and engagement are possible,” Clinton later told a news conference of the brief meeting.

In the Guardian: Clinton began her first round of Middle East diplomacy yesterday by promising to pursue peace between Israel and the Arabs on “many fronts” … Her mention of peace on other fronts suggested the Obama administration may also push for a deal between Israel and Syria. …

The international conference raised pledges of more than $4bn in aid to the Palestinians. However, it is still unclear how much reconstruction can take place in Gaza while Israel continues its blockade, which prevents the import of materials such as concrete, glass and metal.

Clinton promised to “vigorously” pursue a two-state peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians… Clinton made no reference to the closure of the Gaza crossings, or to Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are a prime concern for the Palestinians.

Clinton expressed doubt Monday that Iran would respond to the Obama administration’s diplomatic initiatives toward Tehran on nuclear and other issues, a senior State Department official said.

Syrian P.M. Ottri begins an official visit to Tehran heading the Syrian delegation to the Iranian-Syrian Higher Committee

Moscow raises the ante against Washington, saying the time has come for the White House to begin negotiations with Iran in earnest.

Middle East Peace and the U.S.-Saudi Relationship:

A Conversation with Tom Lippman
Saudi-US Relations Information Servic

SUSRIS: Thank you for taking time today to share your perspective on US-Saudi relations and current developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Let me start by asking you about recent public pronouncements, rebukes of Washington over the Gaza conflict, from prominent Saudi Arabians including Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Ambassador to the U.S. and Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Saeed, an advisor to the Royal Court [links below]. The criticisms were accompanied by warnings the current developments are of a different nature than any before, and portend a diminished relationship, not just the Saudi-US relationship, but the east-west dialogue. There was also King Abdullah’s statement that the Arab Peace Plan wasn’t going to be on the table indefinitely. What do you think about these criticisms being aired in public?

THOMAS LIPPMAN: Let me put it this way. I certainly understand why the frustration among prominent people would come to the surface now and even boil a little bit. I don’t necessarily agree that the current state of play is more dire than it has been in the past, say as it was after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. To me, what these statements represent is kind of an outpouring of sentiment from well-intentioned people, who don’t know what to do. What are their choices here? What are their options?

If you were in this situation, you would know a certain number of things. You know that there is a deep split among the Palestinians, which Riyadh has made vigorous efforts to at least paper over if not rectify; and you have not succeeded. You know the Palestinians, as before, are their own worst enemies. You know that in Israel, whoever becomes Prime Minister just gave a substantial vote to the forces of power that have no intention of giving up territory. They are not committed to the Arab League Peace Plan or, at this point, any other.

You should not have been disappointed by the position taken by the United States because “what’s new?” Why would you expect something different this time? It’s been a long time since 1956.

In my assessment I would say it is unlikely — but not impossible — that these statements portend any serious policy changes. I don’t see what the choices are. I don’t see the Saudis or any of the other people in their camp suddenly going back to the boycott of Israel, an oil embargo, or any kind of confrontational policy. They’re not in a position to make a military challenge. They’re unable to move public opinion in the United States in any clear way. So where are they going with this?

SUSRIS: What do you think? Are these signals to shape the behavior of the Obama Administration?

LIPPMAN: When you combine these statements with a very, very elaborate and well-publicized show that was given to Chinese President Hu Jintao [Feb 10], clearly the Saudis are expressing their disappointment at the state of play, but they’ve been disappointed at the state of play since 1948. I don’t see what any new policy options are.

SUSRIS: Specific policy courses of action are indeed open questions but the public rebukes of the U.S. Government and the level of the rhetoric suggests that the Gaza strikes are being viewed in a new framework and the comments don’t seem to be getting any public response from Washington officials or thought leaders.

LIPPMAN: I agree that there’s a higher level of outrage. And it’s probable that in this time of instant communication everybody was watching what happened on satellite TV. So the Saudi leadership is feeling, I wouldn’t say public pressure — they run the country — but sentiment, a very strong sentiment to do something. But they’re hemmed in.

One, they’re severely hemmed in by the desire not to be in the same camp as the Iranians. That’s a big issue, that’s a big problem here. They’re hemmed in by their desire not to be seen as making common cause with Syria.

So I certainly sympathize with the dilemma that the Saudis find themselves in. After all, a month before Gaza, the Saudis were among the fifty or so Muslim and Arab countries that put those full-page ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post, restating their commitment to the Arab League Peace Plan. It couldn’t have been a more public affirmation. The timing clearly suggested they were talking to the incoming administration; and then this happened.

I also understand why they’re not in a position to stand up and make, at this point, the case that they really did make at one point, which was that Hamas asked for it. Hamas very cynically provoked this, knowing it could not lose. If it inflicted suffering on the Palestinian people, well, that’s not their problem. That’s useful to Hamas. The Saudis know that. They’re just not in a position to say that right now.

So I certainly understand their rhetorical position. I understand their frustration. What I don’t see is actual policy consequences, game changing policy consequences. I just don’t see them.

SUSRIS: The criticisms in some of these messages were ameliorated somewhat by the positive comments about the Obama Administration naming George Mitchell as the U.S. envoy. Do you see a possibility of Mitchell making a difference?

LIPPMAN: Absolutely not. I’m not optimistic, especially if Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister. [Mr. Lippman was interviewed before the Israeli election.]

SUSRIS: What will these developments do for the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia as we have a new administration and Saudi requests for American action, in your estimation, will go unfulfilled?

LIPPMAN: It’s a serious question that deserves a serious answer, and I’m kind of at a loss to figure it out, because I don’t see who’s going where with this. We don’t know what’s going to happen, we don’t know the outcome in Israel, except that if even if Livni becomes Prime Minister, she’s going to have to form a coalition with pro-settler right-wingers in some way or another. So the Israelis are not going to dismantle the settlements.

I’m just in the middle of reading Martin Indyk’s book [“Innocent Abroad”] about Middle East diplomacy in the Clinton Administration. There was a point where the Americans believed that they were on the verge of a Syrian deal, independent of the Palestinians. Now if Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister, you won’t even get that.

By all accounts, even if you were to get a legal separation of Israel and Palestine and the formation of a Palestinian state, the prospect of contiguity and economic viability in that Palestinian state diminishes with every passing day. So it’s one of those things where everybody who looks at this is horrified but nobody knows what to do about it. What’s not going to happen is that the President of the United States will stand up and publicly issue an ultimatum for the Israelis and enforce it. That is not going to happen. Absent that the Israelis are not going to make substantive changes or take the gamble of the Arab League Peace Plan. That being the case, I understand why Secretary Clinton is going to the Far East on her first trip instead of to the Middle East. What would she bring? They already appointed George Mitchell. So what else does she have to offer? There’d be nothing on the table.

So, if I sound very negative about this, it’s not because I don’t respect the Saudis’ views. I understand their views. I just don’t see a game-changing event here. In the history of the Middle East in my lifetime there’s always been some unpredictable, game-changing event that made things happen. Whether it was the 1967 war, or Sadat suddenly getting rid of the Russians and going to Israel, or whatever it was. In this case, I don’t believe that the Israeli campaign in Gaza was a game-changing event.

SUSRIS: What do you think about what Mr. Riad Kahwaji, CEO of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Affairs, writing in the online forum Bitterlemons, said, “The moderate Arab camp finds itself in a paradoxical situation. It cannot afford to see the Iranian axis grow stronger, and at the same time cannot but oppose Israel when the latter resorts to indecisive and bloody military campaigns. By failing to get Israel to accept the Arab Peace Initiative, or to generate progress in the peace process, the moderate camp is weakened every time Israel unsuccessfully engages any of Iran’s allies.”

LIPPMAN: He agrees with me, and I agree with him. My view is that in Gaza, Hamas set a trap for Israel and Israel walked into it. Israel may not have had any choice in terms of its own domestic politics. They couldn’t just sit around on their hands and let those rockets continue to fall. But the consequences of this were fairly predictable. Yes, there was terrible damage. Yes, Hamas’ military infrastructure may have been weakened. But look at the outcome if you were Hamas. You drove another wedge between the moderates and Saudi Arabia, and the United States. You put an end to the indirect Turkish-mediated Syrian/Israeli talks. And you emerged still in power in Gaza with the relief money that’s going into Gaza being distributed through you, which enhances your political position. You embarrassed King Abdullah of Jordan, raising the possibility that Jordan might have to back away from it’s own peace treaty. You made life miserable for the Egyptians. I think Hamas knew exactly what it was doing and it was, in that sense, successful. I just don’t see what the so-called moderate camp is going to do about it.

SUSRIS: Let’s return to our fundamental question. What are the effects on the U.S.-Saudi relationship and what are the next steps for Washington and Riyadh? Are the open reactions among Saudis a blow to American credibility as a new administration tries to get its arms around difficult issues in the region?

LIPPMAN: I agree with your sense that the relationship has been damaged, not in any specific policy way. Let’s keep it in perspective. The business relationship is not going to change. Just this week the Saudis announced they gave a huge turbine contract to General Electric, for example.

But I think that to the extent the King of Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Minister, Prince Turki, and other leaders of the Saudi political, economic, and intellectual establishment become more, what would you say, despairing, realistic about what any United States government is going to do in this situation, I think the relationship will continue to thin out. Maybe it will accelerate. I don’t believe Abdullah is going to back away from the interfaith dialogue, because that’s not really just about the United States. He’s personally committed to the dialogue.

I think you could make a case that for the Saudis, there’s nothing to do for the next year or so but wait and watch. What happens in the Iranian elections? What happens as the power in Gaza sorts itself out? What happens to the succession in Egypt? What Bashar in Syria decides to do? Whether Iraq holds together. There are so many imponderables right now. Who becomes Prime Minister of Israel? What is his or her policy? What is Mitchell going to offer? There’s not much that you can do in this moment to ameliorate the effects. What you have to do is try to manage public opinion. So you don’t do anything irreversible while you wait to find out what happens.

SUSRIS: What can Washington do?

LIPPMAN: Well, I think there’s a difference between what the U.S. could do and what the U.S. is likely to do. That’s been true as long as I’ve been at this game. The United States could issue an unequivocal statement of support for the Arab League peace initiative. And you could present this as being in Israel’s best interests – a tough love policy. I don’t think that’s going to happen, because the American position is that we can’t make decisions for the Israelis. They’re a sovereign country with their own interests to preserve and protect, and they feel seriously threatened by the Iranian nuclear program. They’re not inclined to do anything to make them more vulnerable right now, and the United States is not going force them to do that.

SUSRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lippman, for your perspective on these critical questions.

Thomas W. Lippman is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. In four years as the Washington Post’s Middle East bureau chief, three years as the Post’s oil and energy reporter and a decade as the newspaper’s national security and diplomatic correspondent, he traveled extensively to Saudi Arabia. He is the author of “Arabian Knight: Colonel Bill Eddy USMC and the Rise of American Power in the Middle East,” “Inside the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia,”

Over the next week, Syria Comment will post two essays on the peace process. This week I will argue why Syria may not get the Golan back from Israel. Next week I will argue why it may.

Why Syria Will Not Get the Golan Back: Why Israel and the Arabs will continue at War
By Joshua Landis
February 28, 2009, Syria Comment

Jeffrey Feltman

Syria’s ambassador in Washington met with State Department officials in Washington for the first time since 2005 on Thursday. Well, the first “polite” meeting. Imad Moustapha was ordered to the State Department in April to listen to a briefing about U.S. intelligence showing that Syria had secretly constructed a nuclear reactor based on a North Korean design. (Israel destroyed the alleged reactor in 2007.) “It was nothing productive,” an embassy spokesman explained. “It was the same old policy of dictating to us.”

The meeting this week between Imad Moustapha and Jeffrey Feltman, the US’s new Acting Assistant Secretary of State, was reportedly polite and meant to discuss a broad array of issues that divide the two countries. All the same, it is not clear how polite or whether the negotiating will get very far because both sides mistrust and misinterpret each other profoundly. Hillary Clinton’s announcement Thursday that“It is too soon to say what the future holds,” underscores this problem. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said on Friday, “there will be no normalization of ties with the Damascus regime until it meets key American demands, including an end to “interference in Lebanese issue issue,” Wood stressed that there are certain principles which Washington will not abandon.

“We felt it was important to communicate our concerns directly and we shall see how the Syrians will respond to it, including the interference on Lebanese internal affairs and their support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah,”

Imad Moustapha, however, was up beat and told reporters on Thursday that the talks were “very constructive.” He expects there to be more meetings in the coming months.

“We believe that this meeting has explored possibilities between Syria and the United States to engage on a diplomatic and political level and also to discuss all issues of mutual concern,” the ambassador said. “We think this is a first step and we believe there will be many further meetings.”

The barriers standing in front of a successful peace process are many. First, the debilitating imbalance of power between Syria and Israel stands out above all others.  Second, the US is not an impartial or neutral mediator, but a lawyer for Israel. Third, underlying these problems are the radically different world-views of each side and deep mistrust for each other, due to decades of demonization and warfare. Building trust under such conditions is extremely difficult, especially if it is to be built by the placing a long list of pre-conditions on dialog

Mistrust

An example of mistrust: One State Department official explained to me Wednesday that Syria is holding back appointing an ambassador to Lebanon until the US appoints one to Damascus. This would erode trust, he explained, because Syria had already promised the French it would appoint the ambassador in exchange for Sarkozi’s public embrace of Assad. The implication was clear; the US believes Syria is being a “rug merchant” and double dealing on the Lebanese ambassador issue.

Why would Syria do this? Syrian officials have been saying for over a month that there would be an American ambassador appointed to Damascus by the end of February. This has yet to happen. It is hard to know how each side measures its quid pro quo’s.

Balance of Power

Damascus faces an impossible problem in negotiating with Washington because of its profound relative weakness. The US and Israel work hand and glove to keep Syria weak economically,militarily and diplomatically. The US has helped Israel to bomb Syrian military installations, assassinate HIzbullah and Hamas operatives in Syria, and by designating anti-israeli militias and states as terrorist organizations. A panoply of economic sanctions are also martialed to Israel’s advantage. Israel is incomparably stronger than Syria and getting more so all the time.

Syria stands almost no reasonable chance of getting back the Golan Heights occupied by Israel in 1967 unless Washington makes a clear division between its own interests and those of Israel. Washington should not act as Israel’s lawyer and body guard, which it does today. Instead it must help rectify the terrible imbalance of regional power which allows — in fact encourages — Israel to thumb its nose at international law and continue to annex and settle its neighbors’ land.

Washington has imposed such an imposing list of sanctions, privations, and legal impositions on Syria over the last few decades that Syria cannot hope to negotiate with Israel as an equal. Many of the laws proscribing Syria can be reversed only by congressional vote, which will not be forthcoming unless Syria abandons its allies.

The best example of Syria’s losing battle to rectify the balance of power between it and Israel is the recent report by the IAEA on the indications that Syria was trying to develop nuclear power. This report was made possible by Israel’s illegal bombing with US support of a Syrian military installation in September 2007. Neither the UN nor Europeans objected to Israel’s illegal bombing. Because of the UN sanctioned bombing of Syria — the UN refused to take action against the bombing — the US can now refer Syria to the UN’s Security Council for sanctions unless inspectors are allowed full privileges to scour Syria’s military installations and catalog it efforts at military improvement. Israel will probably gain access to these reports, assisting its efforts to destroy Syria’s attempts to alter its losing balance of power.

At the same time as helping to destroy Syria’s efforts to develop nuclear and advanced technologies, the US helps Israel to improve its own advantages. It transfers advanced missile and weapon technology to Israel. It also protects Israel from any censure by the UN for developing a full panoply of nuclear capabilities.

Practically all of Syria’s friends and allies have been designated as “terrorist” organizations or rogue countries and criminalized accordingly. In the meantime, Israel is protected from international efforts to stop its settlement of and expropriation of Palestinian and Syrian territory. This is a tremendous help to Israel. Israelis understand that they can “play” the US; knowing that no president will dare cross them.

The only reason Israel re-opened indirect negotiations with Syria last year is because of its fear of Iran and Hizbullah. The US has done everything in its power to eliminate these two compelling incentives to negotiate, all the while stating that it encourages negotiations. This contradiction is apparent to Syria and convinces it that the US is not serious about helping Syria to regain the Golan or to encourage the final application of international law on borders.

When the State Department insists that Syria must give up all support for Hizbullah and Hamas before gaining US support for negotiations or engagement, Syria can only understand this as a demand to surrender. ‘Non-interference in Lebanon” means helping to disarm Hizbullah and allowing pro-US and Israeli Lebanese to gain the upper hand there.

Were Syria to actually cut relations with Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran before negotiating with Israel, there would be no negotiations. Israel would have won. It would have no incentive to give up the Golan. As Netanyahu has stated many times, “the Syrian border with Israel has been Israel’s safest for 35 years.” Syria can only pressure Israel across the Lebanese border or by supporting Palestinian resistance. Once these fronts are quite, Israel will have the peace it demands – but without making painful concessions on the Golan.

Step by Step Diplomacy will not Work

The US is playing a difficult game with Syria. It insists on making Syria pay for every diplomatic concession with an equal concession of its own. The problem with this chit-for-chit game is that Syria has few chits to play. Yes, Syria can reopen the American school it closed a few months ago. It can once again agree to issue visa’s to Fulbright professors and American scholars. It can allow Amid-East and other State-Department funded organizations back into Syria. It can let out a few political prisoners, such as Michel Kilo, but these small tokens will quickly be exhausted. The US has a rich array of sanctions and privations it has placed on Syria that it can lift one at a time for many years. Syria has nothing of comparable worth, save support for Hizbullah, Lebanese sovereignty (which, to America, is practically the same thing as disarming Hizbullah) and support for Hamas. These cards absolutely necessary for successful negotiations over the return of the Golan. Syria cannot give them up before getting back the Golan, as the US and Israel are demanding.

Syria cannot trust the US. Even if US diplomats and politicians assure Assad that they will help Syria get back the Golan if it shows good faith by giving up Hizbullah and ending support for Hamas, Syria cannot bank on such promises. The US has demonstrated no ability to force such concessions from Israel since Eisenhower pressured it to give up the Sinai following the 1956 Suez Crisis. Bush the father had to cave on the issue of halting settlement expansion. Clinton failed to get Barak to give up all the Golan in 2000, a expectation that led Hafiz al-Assad to travel to Geneva to meet with Clinton.

How will the Obama administration square its contradictory policy demands: one, that it wants Israel-Syria peace; and two, that Syria must cut relations with Hizbullah and Hamas prior to engagement for such a peace?

Israelis argue that they cannot trust Syria to break with Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran once Syria has gotten back the Golan. In fact they are not even convinced that “flipping” Syria is worth the Golan.  Syria will not trust Israel to give back the Golan once Syria has broken with its allies. In fact, Syria does not believe it should have to break with its allies to get back its rightful territory.

What is clear, however, is that Israel will not offer the Golan to Syria unless the US helps restore the skewed balance of power between Israel and Syria. Secretary of State Clinton has promised that the US will demand that Syria give up its bargaining cards before sitting down at the table. Obama in his interview of al-Arabiyya stated that “Israel’s security is paramount” to the US. He underlined this promise by vocalizing US support for Israel’s Gaza invasion.  Israel was made to pay no price for invading Gaza, just as it paid no price for invading Lebanon in 2006, or bombing Syria in 2007. These freebe operations have convinced Israelis that they do not have to make concessions or compromise with their enemies. The confirmation that war works for Israel can be found in elections earlier this month. Israelis moved squarely to the right. They know that war works; the two state solution no longer has to be entertained, and that the US will side with Israel when it decides to use force rather than diplomacy. For these reasons, it is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which Syria will actually get back the Golan. Yes, there will be talks and plenty of discussions and process, but no peace.

[END]

See Richard Haass’ Newsweek article: Obama Should Talk To Syria Now:

….It may be difficult to make peace with Syria, but it will be all but impossible to make peace in the region without it. President Obama correctly views dialogue as a tool, not a reward. It is time to put the tool to use, and to see what can be built.

Also See Aluf Benn in Haaretz: “Can Israel make peace with Syria without leaving Golan?” This is important as it may reflect Netanyahu’s approach.

On the eve of the election, while visiting the Golan and planting a tree for Tu Bishvat (Hebrew Arbor Day), Netanyahu declared that, “Gamla will not fall again” and “the Golan will remain in our hands.” According to him, “For 35 years this has been the quietest border we have because we are on the Golan, not below it.” On other occasions, he has declared that withdrawal from the Heights would turn it into “an Iranian base.” He sees the indirect negotiations Prime Minister Ehud Olmert conducted with the Syrians as having offered concessions without recompense, as a useless move that served only to extricate Syrian President Bashar Assad from international isolation. An agreement that would include only a limited withdrawal, however, in which Israel would “remain on the Golan,” does not contradict Netanyahu’s principles.

The following is a small portion of a recent email interchange I had with a military analyst who was tasked with gaming US negotiations with Syria:

Analyst

I am thrilled about our new approach to diplomacy. But we have to be VERY careful with Syria. I genuinely believe Bashar wants to leave the dark side- but I think he believes he is in the cat-bird seat and will get more than he’ll have to give. With Syria’s record, that’s not acceptable.
If I am terrible off track, please let me know!

Analyst on the Hariri tribunal

The analysts I have spoken with here agree that the Tribunal will not find enough evidence to implicate Bashar. They might be able to implicate some Syrian intel officers who Syria won’t turn over the Tribunal. So either way it is sticky. But I am not so sure nothing will be found on Bashar. The Saudis hate Bashar and have already accused Syria of 30 years of political assassinations- including Hariri- and of fermenting turmoil in the region. What if they are able to provide information? (Which they might do if Bashar does not cooperate and pull back on his support to resistance groups and move away from Iran.) If the west is deep in its courtship of Bashar, this could all prove very embarrassing and we’d have to do a 180. From a Red Team perspective, that is what I am writing on.

Landis replies:

I think Syria sees things quite differently. You write:

“I genuinely believe Bashar wants to leave the dark side- but I think he believes he is in the cat-bird seat and will get more than he’ll have to give. With Syria’s record, that’s not acceptable.”

Syria, of course, does not believe it exists on the “dark side.” It believes America exists on the “dark side” because of its support for Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians, responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, filling Syria with Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, and support for Israeli’s recent killings in Lebanon and Gaza.

The failure to understand each others’ point of view is a fundamental problem. Both sides have demonized the other and believe that they are blameless and acting honorably when they kill people. Syria believes that it has protected its people from civil war as both Iraq and Lebanon failed to do, or the loss of a state, as the Palestinian leadership failed to do. Syria remains independent, free from terrorism, a defender of “Arab rights,” a regional power — all things that make Syrians proud. Of course they have sacrificed for this in low economic preformance and diplomatic isolation, but, they are not without pride and righteousness.

Syria may believe it has some good cards to play, but it believes that the US and Israel will cheat it because Syria is weak – and Syrians are only too conscious of their military weakness. They must depend on their alliances with Hizbullah, Hamas, and Iran to make up for their own military weakness.

Syria worries that Washington will demand its long list of concessions from Syria and will be unable or unwilling to force Israel to deliver the Golan. This is what happened the last time when Hafiz believed he had the promise only to discover in Geneva that it was not true and Clinton would be a “rug merchant.”

In fact Americans do not know and cannot say with any confidence that they can deliver the Golan.

Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas are crucial levers to Syria in negotiating with Israel which is so much stronger than Syria. The US wants Syria to abandon them before sponsoring Golan talks. Syria will not do this because it feels certain that Israel and the US only want to divide and conquer – separate it from its allies so it can isolate and destroy it.

As for whether the Saudis have any evidence on Syria that they have held back, I don’t know about such things.

Simon Tisdall gets the story and analysis right. This week has been confusing because a number of the US visitors to Damascus arrived with tough words that raised Syrian hackles and reminded us of rhetoric from the previous administration — i.e. Syria must end support for terrorism, Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran, etc. if it wants the US to change its attitude. Such language, we all know, is a non-starter. Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran are not considered terrorist by Syria. On the contrary they are seen as vital allies who fight for a just cause and help Syria make up for its terrible weakness in the face of Israeli military power and desire to hang on to the Golan Heights. Syria has demonstrated for decades now that it will not cut relations with allies that America designates as terrorists to win US engagement. Indeed, for it to do so would be tantamount to giving up the Golan Heights and raising its hands in defeat in the face of US and Israeli pressure. Syria can only afford to change its regional strategy once the Golan is safely returned. To abandon its regional assets before negotiations are joined would be simple stupidity.

At any rate, many in Syria were concerned that Obama’s people were singing that same tune as Bush’s people. Imad Moustapha and others are assuring us that this is not true and that there remains good reason to be patient and hopeful. Senator John Kerry said the same thing. So in the words of Tisdall, we need to indulge a bit of old style rhetoric as Obama’s people work behind the scenes to finesse the many land mines set by the Bush administration.

Courting Syria
Policy advisers in Washington increasingly see improved relations with Damascus as crucial to peace in the Middle East
Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 February

As they review Middle East policy options, Barack Obama’s advisers face two fixed certainties. One is that there is no magic wand, no easy, pain-free way forward. Second, it’s crucial to distinguish between what you want and what you can get. As Bill Clinton and others before him discovered, they are not usually the same thing.

That said, all else is fungible. Analysts who assume Obama will somehow let Arab-Israeli peacemaking define his presidency overseas are firing wide. All the indications are that his will be a “realist” foreign policy guided by pragmatism and self-interest, as shown by the hard-nosed message Hillary Clinton in China has just sent to the “free Tibet” movement.

If in four years’ time, military confrontation with Iran has been avoided, the Iraq withdrawal has been managed honourably and without internal collapse and some kind of half-credible peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbours is in train, Obama’s people will probably call it a good result. Anything more would be a bonus.

As usual in the Middle East, these objectives are linked. What has been less evident until now is the degree to which improved US relations with Syria could hold the key to all three. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, certainly seems to think so.

During a weekend visit to Damascus, Kerry spoke optimistically of Syria’s role in reconciling Hamas and Fatah and promoting a Palestinian unity government withwhich Israel might be obliged to negotiate. He also claimed Syria was ready to help more on Iraqi security and on Lebanon, where the opening next monthof a controversialinternationaltribunal investigating the 2005 murder of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri will be followed by summer elections. Syria has been accused of complicity in Hariri’s killing.

“I believe this is an important moment of change, a moment of potential transformation, not just in the relationship between the US and Syria but in the relationship of the region,” said Kerry, who consulted Clinton before setting out.

Pro-western Arab states are making smiley faces, too. According to Syrian media reports, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief brought a message from King Abdullahstressing “bilateral ties and the importance of consultation and co-ordination” to a recent meeting with Assad. Riyadh may also return its ambassador to Damascus. Egypt is meanwhile doggedly hosting Palestinian unity talks.

Interviewed by the Guardian last week, Assad also seemed in the mood to talk. He stressed American indispensability in Middle East peacemaking and encouraged Obama to redeem his offer of resumed dialogue. He said he wanted actions, not words.

Officially Obama maintains the standard US positions that Syria must “change its behaviour” – meaning curb its backing for Hamas and Hezbollah, end political meddling in Lebanon and more closely support US objectives in Iraq and Iran.

But behind the scenes, it’s becoming clearer to Washington’s policy reviewers that better relations with Syria would serve multiple American purposes and that, with a bit of imagination and flexibility, previous sticking points might be finessed.

The US, for example, would not in practice demand an all-out Syrian break with Iran – an unrealistic aim. Rather it would look for a unilateral ending of some of their more objectionable joint activities, such as arms supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon, pending a mooted US-Iranian dialogue and a possible change of government in Tehran.

Other parts of this nascent two-way bargain could includeSyrian help in securing a smooth transition in Iraq; and bridge-building between Hamas and Fatah prior to the resumption of talks on a two-state solution. One theoretical offer in return is an easing of sanctions, a perhaps less judgmental view of the Hariricase, security guarantees and eventualdiplomatic and economic normalisation – increasingly important given Syria’s financial straits.

Most intriguing of all is the possibility that Team Obama, less than enamoured with a new rightwing Israeli government led by Binyamin Netanyahu, could use improving US ties with Damascus as leverage to encourage moderate thoughts in Tel Aviv.

More than anything, Assad wants the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Netanyahu insists he cannot have it – but Obama, like some leading Israeli centrists, may feel less strongly. If, as seems likely, he obstructs the Palestinian track, the Likud leader may have to give ground elsewhere, literally.

Politically speaking, Obama cannot and will not turn his back on Israel. But he may be prepared to squeeze, more so than his predecessors, primarily in pragmatic pursuit of key US regional interests. If Assad is smart, and that’s another imponderable, he’ll seize the moment.

Bringing Syria In: The ECONOMIST

“…However, Mr Assad has delayed the appointment of an ambassador to Beirut, prompting speculation that he is looking for some form of diplomatic reward for taking this step—such as an assurance that the US president, Barack Obama, will appoint a US ambassador to Damascus…Mr Obama is likely to send an ambassador to Damascus in due course. He can also be expected to approve including Syria on the itinerary of US officials visiting the region. These would be likely to include, in the first instance, the assistant secretary of state for near east affairs, a post for which an appointment has yet to be announced (one of the names said to be in the hat is Jeffrey Feltman,… bête noire to Syria’s Lebanese allies). Mr Assad has also expressed interest in receiving David Petraeus, the head of the US Central Command, which suggests that he might be ready to offer some co-operation to the US in ensuring an orderly exit of its troops from Iraq….

The timing of an American ambassadorial appointment will be critical. Mr Obama could offer this move as an early gesture of goodwill. He could alternatively hold it back as means to maintain pressure on Syria in a number of sensitive areas. One of these is the Lebanese general election, which is scheduled to take place on June 7th. The election could see a shift in the balance of power towards Syria’s allies, led by Hizbullah, a Shia political and military group that the US wishes to be disarmed. If such a shift should occur as a result of what the US perceives to be Syrian interference, relations between Washington and Damascus could revert to their former coolness….

The US administration will also be looking at several other benchmarks of what it might describe as Syrian good behaviour. These include the negotiations about a long-term ceasefire in the Gaza Strip; the US expects Syria to use its influence on Hamas and Islamic Jihad to secure a favourable outcome….”

Sami Moubayedsets out steps that both the US and Syria can take to improve relations in his article:
Syria confident of US detente By Sami Moubayed

Recommended steps would be:
Start a gradual three stage program to lift the Syrian Accountability Act. The Syrians realize that this cannot be done overnight, since once sanctions become embedded into American law, it becomes very difficult to lift them. The sanctions come in the form of a menu, where sanctions are “selected” by the US president. Bush approved some, and left others hanging. Step one would be to start a “de-ticking” process, where the approved sanctions are lifted, one-at-a-time, to show the Syrians good faith. Eventually, the Accountability Act will still be there, but it will be a crippled law found only on paper.Remove Syria from the State Department list of states that sponsor terrorism. Theoretically this would be easier since it doesn’t need Congress, but rather a decision from the secretary of state in coordination with the White House. Syria can condition that its name be removed before entering into the peace talks again, or wait until a peace treaty is signed then automatically its name will be crossed off.

Send an ambassador to Syria to fill a post that has been vacant since 2005. Unlike what most people believe, this cannot be done by Obama or Clinton alone; it needs the Senate which has to date not named a potential ambassador, nor has it suggested any potential candidates.

Help Syria deal with the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Syria’s territory, and publically acknowledge Syria’s cooperation with refugees and the security situation in Iraq, mainly border security. Under Bush, the US fully grasped Syria’s cooperation but refused to acknowledge it in public. That needs to come to an end.

Support Syria’s application to the World Trade Organization. It has already lifted the veto it once had on Europe signing the Association Agreement withDamascus. That agreement, frozen in 2005, was initialed by both sides last December and is expected to see final ratification in the first half of 2009, according to Syrian Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdullah Dardari.

Initiate an international peace conference, chaired by Obama, to bring all parties to the negotiating table with Israel in something that resembles Madrid II. Syria would condition, just as it did at Annapolis, that the Golan Heights be given top priority. Syria needs the US to broker a deal, but has stressed that it will not be accepting economic aid from the US, like Jordan, Egypt and Palestine. Strings come attached with such aid, the Syrians have always said, and the only requirement would be for the US to lift any kind of restrictions on Syria to enable investment, since the Syrian market is ripe and remains virgin. Syria can support itself, through commercial investment, banking, tourism and technology, and does not need American money.

As for Syria, it can:
Reopen the American Culture Center and the American school that were shut down after a US air raid on a Syrian town on the Syrian-Iraqi border last October.

Use its considerable influence with Hamas to bring an end to the fissure in the Palestinian Territories between the Islamic group and the West-backed Fateh party of President Mahmud Abbas. It has already done a good job at channeling messages back and forth between Hamas and the Europeans.

Take part in talks with Iran over its nuclear issue after the upcoming Iranian presidential elections next summer.

Continue to support the political process in Iraq, through Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malki who has managed in recent months to restore a certain degree of normalcy to Iraq. This would require Syria to invest in its strong relations withheavyweight Sunnis, tribal leaders and former Ba’athists. Results were clear in the provincial elections, when Sunnis took part, even in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, unlike the elections of 2005, when they collectively boycotted.

Syrians want to be seen as problem-solvers rather than problem-seekers. They want to show the world – mainly the US – that just as they can deliver on Palestine, they can deliver in Iraq and Lebanon. Syria has said these words in every possible language, and it will continue to show the West that it can deliver in the Middle East. For years the Syrians have been saying that reforms cannot be made unless there are no regional and international threats threatening Damascus.

When regime-change was on the table in Washington back in 2005, reforms were slowed down on more than one level, politics included. The Syrians always said that reforms cannot be made only because they are a requirement of Europe or the US; they cannot be parachuted on the Syrians. If Syria feels comfortable, as it does now, then the reform process might be given a facelift.

Last week, speaking at the Arab Writers Union Congress in Damascus, Haitham Satayhi, member of the Regional Command of the ruling Ba’ath Party, announced that there were instructions to improve relations between the security services and Syrian citizens. There was a determination to combat corruption and “achieve more democracy in the political domain”.

Satayhiadded that a special committee has been set up to study and prepare a political party law in Syria to allow for more political pluralism, as promised by the Ba’athParty Congress of 2005. If anything, this shows that Syria feels very confident, and is not worried, as many in the Western press had speculated, about the internationaltribunal that will begin on March 1 for the murder of Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafiq al-Harriri. …

The Syrian bread and cereals price index marked a 27 percent increase over January 2008 price

Drought blamed for food scarcity
Photo: Abigail Fielding-Smith/IRIN

The Syrian bread and cereals price index marked a 27 percent increase over January 2008 prices
DAMASCUS, 22 February 2009 (IRIN) – Two years of drought has left many farmers and herders without an income and has severely limited cereal production in Syria, pushing up local food prices and putting pressure on basic food supplies, according to UN and Syrian government officials.

In 2008, Syria had to import wheat for the first time after a shortage caused by a second year of drought, which the Syrian government says has affected about a million people so far. Emergency wheat stocks have been depleted though adequate supplies remain.

“There is still enough food in Syria to go round,” Abdullah Mawazini, Public Information Officer for the World Food Programme (WFP) in Syria, said. “But we are worried about the provision of basic materials. It is a dangerous indicator for Syria that last year we had to import wheat.”

Syria usually keeps three years’ worth of wheat stocks, Mawazini said, but in 2008 it agreed to sell supplies to countries struggling with a lack of food, including Egypt and Tunisia.
”There is still enough food in Syria to go round. But we are worried about the provision of basic materials. It is a dangerous indicator for Syria that last year we had to import wheat.”

Syria is usually self-sufficient in providing food for its 21.6 million population. UN agencies warn that the country could become more food insecure if rainfall over the next two months remains as low as it has been at the start of 2009.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) calculates that wheat production in non-irrigated areas of Syria dropped by 82 percent compared with the previous season, while the barley harvest in non-irrigated areas failed entirely. Overall wheat and barley yields dropped by 47 and 67 percent respectively compared to the previous year, said the FAO.

Because of a high level of subsistence farming in Syria, many families have lost not just their income, but their means of feeding themselves. “Many farmers’ crops failed entirely,” Abdulla Tahir Bin Yehia, FAO representative in Syria, said. “It hits them very hard. No crop means no income. And on top of that they need to buy food and seeds which are at higher prices because of the crop failure.”

Knock-on effects

The knock-on effects of reduced food production include a rise in food prices, malnutrition, migration from the countryside, an increased school dropout rate and added pressure on the job market as farmers seek other employment.

“The reduced availability of wheat and barley has contributed to increases in the prices of food items in the Syrian market,” Mawazinisaid. The Syrian bread and cereals price index marked a 27 percent increase over January 2008 prices. This, a joint UN report said, has outstripped household incomes and the purchasing power of the general population, especially in the drought-affected areas.
Failed crops have led to a higher school dropout rate and greater migration from the country to urban areas

Herders have also been affected. With reduced pasture, there is less space for their animals to graze. The cost of animal feed has soared. Some 59,000 small herders (those with less than 100 animals) lost almost all their livestock. This has led to drastic measures.

“Herders and farmers have sold off their assets: land, animals, houses, furniture, jewellery – all for low prices,” Bin Yehia said. “The poorest are affected most. These include many women-headed households.”

Many of those affected have migrated to urban areas, causing rural school dropout rates to rise. According to the UN, migration rates from rural to urban areas have increased by 20 to 30 percent year-on-year from 2007 to 2008.

Drought appeal

A drought appeal was launched by UN agencies in Syria in September 2008. A US$1.8 million emergency operation by the FAO identified 9,630 farmers to receive 300kg of wheat seeds or 150kg of barley seeds – enough for each farmer to plant a two-hectare crop. These were distributed in December and January.

It also helped stall migration. “Many farmers came back to the villages when they heard they were eligible for seeds,” Bin Yehia of FAO said. “It is imperative to future food security that they do not give up farming.”

The joint FAO-WFP response continues until May 2009. But if rainfall continues to be low, a new appeal will be launched.

US Senator: plight of Iraqi refugees in Syria dire

VIENNA – A U.S. senator says the plight of Iraqi refugees in Syria is desperate.

Democratic Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland says he met some of the refugees this week on a visit to Syria and saw what they’re going through. He says he’s urging the U.S. and the international community to do more to alleviate what he calls a humanitarian crisis.

Syria has taken in the largest number of refugees fleeing Iraq and has long demanded greater international support to handle the strain on its housing, health care and educational system. Syria estimates there are 1.1 million refugees in the country.

Imad Moustapha in the following article in Arabic explains that his invitation to talk at the State Department this week is a courteousinvitation and not a summons. He will be discussing various topics of mutualinterest to both countries and not being dressed down for failure to comply with the UN non-proliferation treaty.

???? ?????: ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????????.. ? ???? ?????? ???? : ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ? ??? :” ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ????. ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???????.

???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ????????

Katyusha Attack: Iranian Reaction or Message to Syria!

A weekend rocket attack on Israel from southern Lebanon was seen as an Iranian reaction to remarks by hawkish Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu who has named Tehran as Israel’s main threat.
The daily An Nahar on Sunday quoted high-ranking officials up-to-date with Saturday’s incident as saying that evidence show that the motive behind the rocket attack that injured three Israeli people was “an Iranian response to Netanyahu’s remarks.”

Netanyahu’s statement on Friday came after accepting the task of forming a new government in the wake of the tight elections.

“Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence,” Netanyahu said at a ceremony at President Shimon Peres’s official residence.

“The terrorist forces of Iran threaten us from the north,” he said in reference to Lebanon and Syria, where Israel says Tehran supplies arms to Hizbullah and Hamas.

The sources told An Nahar that the rocket attack could also possibly be a “message” to Damascus, which at the time of the assault was receiving U.S Senator John Kerry as the new U.S administration reviews its policies towards such states in the Middle East.

Syria willing to help on Palestinian unity says Kerry
Sat Feb 21, 2009, By Khaled Yacoub Oweis

DAMASCUS (Reuters) – Syria has indicated it is willing to help bring about a Palestinian unity government that could restart peace talks with Israel, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Saturday.

Syria, which is under U.S. sanctions, hosts the exiled leadership of Hamas and has influence on the Palestinian group which controls Gaza.

“Syria could be, in fact, very helpful in helping to bring about a unity government,” Senator John Kerry told reporters after meeting President Bashar al-Assad.

“If you achieve that, then you have made a major step forward not only in dealing with the problems of Gaza but you have made a major step forward in terms of how you reignite discussions for the two-state solution … I think that Syria indicated to me a willingness to be helpful in that respect.”

Syria takes cautious path on stocks
From Institute for War and Peace Reporting

The Syrian authorities are hoping that the country’s first stock exchange will boost the emerging private sector, although it could hardly have started up under more adverse market conditions.

…The official inauguration is scheduled for March 9. The trial also gave the Egyptian-trained brokers and other staff an induction period, including opportunities to practice dealing with emergencies such as systems breakdowns.

As Syria attempts to shift from a centralized socialist system to a “social market economy”, the authorities have introduced legal and regulatory reforms to get the financial sector into better shape. Private banking was legalized in 2001, and more recently private ownership rights were increased. The stock exchange is the latest step in this process, and there are hopes it will stimulate investment in the private sector.

The way was paved for the DSE by a presidential decree issued in 2006, but it has been delayed repeatedly because of problems in acquiring the right technology. A report by Oxford Business group published last year said a United States economic embargo had hampered Syria’s attempts to purchase electronic-trading systems.

The DSE, which is operating under the aegis of the government, will trade only on Mondays and Thursdays, and will be subject to restrictions designed to restrict speculative trading and abrupt changes in share prices. “The Damascus stock exchange will not be open to gambling or risk-taking,” said DSE board chairman Ratib al-Shalah in remarks quoted by the SANA news agency. “Shares can only be traded by those who want to invest money, not for speculation.”

DSE deputy chairman Saqr Aslan has made it clear that the value of shares in any company listed on the exchange will not be allowed to rise by more than 2% in the course of a day’s trading. Nor can shares be bought and resold on the same day.

The pilot phase involves just five companies, most of them local banks withforeign capital. The DSE says that about 30 companies, half of them in the banking and insurance sectors, are at present eligible to take part once the exchange is fully up and running. For a company to qualify, it has to be at least one year old, have a minimum capital of 100 million Syrian liras and at least 100 shareholders.

The DSE’s Aslan told the Syria News website that he expected 15 companies to be listed, with totalcapital of some 28 billion liras.

Syrian President Bashar Assad meets with US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry at the Syrian presidential palace in Damascus on Saturday (AP photo)US Sen. Kerry hopeful after Syria talks

By SAM F. GHATTAS – 2 hours ago

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — U.S. Sen. John Kerry said after talks with Syria’s president Saturday that there are possibilities for “real cooperation” between the two nations, which have been at odds for years.

Relations soured under the Bush administration, and Kerry and other members of Congress who have come to the Syrian capital in the last week explored the possibilities for better relations after President Barack Obama signaled he wanted to talk to opponents.

Kerry told a small group of reporters at the U.S. Embassy he was encouraged by the “very long, candid, open” discussion with President Bashar Assad Saturday and that he sees the possibility of progress ahead.

“While we will disagree on some issues for sure, what I heard and what I will take back with me and hopefully what we could put in place to take advantage of it, is the possibility of real cooperation on a number of different issues beginning immediately, beginning soon.”….

He did not elaborate, but the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did say he heard from the Syrians “a great willingness” to share in efforts with respect to Iraq.

During a stop in Beirut on Wednesday, Kerry said the U.S. expected Syria to “change its behavior” — particularly on Iraq and Lebanon — in return for renewing diplomacy with Damascus.

Kerry said there is an opportunity with Obama in the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress “to put in place a different approach.”

Assad told Kerry and U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, whom he met with separately earlier in the day, that “the policy of dictation has proven useless and that dialogue is the only way” to solve problems, according to Syria’s official news agency, SANA…..

Syria’s ambassador to Washington described the congressional visits to Damascus as being “of extreme importance and depth.” But he stressed he was still waiting to see if the visits change “the manner of dialogue between us and America.”

“Let us see what are the goals we all want to reach, where we agree where we disagree … what are the easy and difficult obstacles, things that we can postpone until later,” Imad Mustapha told The Associated Press in Damascus. He said the U.S. was still re-evaluating its policy toward Syria.

Already during their trips to the Mideast, Kerry and Cardin repeated the previous American language demanding Damascus change its ways in terms of its ties to Iran and backing of militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian Hamas.

“We’re looking for actions, and we will have a good frank discussion about what those expectations are,” Kerry said during his stop in Beirut earlier this week.

Sateh Noureddine, the managing editor of Lebanon’s As-Safir newspaper that is supportive of Syria, said Kerry’s message indicated that optimism over budding U.S.-Syria relations was exaggerated.

The U.S. is seeking “a conditional dialogue, not openness,” and it is too early to tell its outcome, he said. “It is a step backward.”

U.S.-Syrian relations grew tense after Damascus staunchly opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of neighboring Iraq. Relations soured further when the Bush administration pulled the U.S. ambassador out of Syria in 2005 to protest Syria’s suspected role in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Damascus denied involvement in Hariri’s death, but in the uproar that followed, it was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, ending a 29-year military presence.

The United States also wants Syria to stop helping militants, control its borders with Iraq and Lebanon, and help stabilize Lebanon. Washington also would like Syria to step back from its close relations with Iran, a longtime ally.

But Syria refuses to stop backing the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah and insists it’s doing all it can to safeguard its long, porous border. It also says it’s willing to help stabilize Iraq….

Syrian political analyst Imad Shueibi was optimistic that U.S.-Syria relations would change from a period of “the wrestling of wills to the sharing of wills.”

“What is happening is not just checking the pulse,” he said of the Congressional visits. “It is an attempt to define the possible horizons in the relations ahead.”

Defence chiefs urge hawk Netanyahu to strike deal with Syria

Uzi Mahnaimi, February 22, 2009

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; }

ISRAEL’S next prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will face an early test when he finally takes office in the next few weeks: should he ditch an election pledge and follow his defence chiefs’ strategic advice to explore a peace treaty with Syria?

During his campaign Netanyahu, the leader of the conservative Likud party, had struck a belligerent note and pledged he would never agree to Syria’s main demand that the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in the 1967 war, should be returned.

On reaching office, however, Netanyahu will be presented with reports compiled by Mossad, the overseas spy agency, and by military intelligence, that strongly advocate opening negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

According to sources familiar with the documents, both Amos Yadlin, the head of military intelligence, and Meir Dagan, his Mossad counterpart, recommend a deal not only to eliminate the risk of war with Syria but also to create a split between Damascus and Iran, Israel’s arch foe.

A United Nations report last week said Iran had accumulated a stockpile of more than one ton of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride at its nuclear facility in Natanz. If highly enriched this would be enough for a nuclear weapon.

The reports argue that Israel is vulnerable to Syria’s upgraded chemical weapons capability, which is being expanded with the help of North Korean experts. Satellite images that emerged last week showed new construction work at the heavily protected site of al-Safir…..
Aides close to Netanyahu say an agreement with Syria is the surest way for Netanyahu to make political progress with the new administration, as they profoundly disagree on other aspects of a Middle East peace deal….”

DJ Syrian Pres Tells Kerry US Should Stop ‘Dictating’ Policy 2009-02-21

DAMASCUS (AFP)–Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told visiting U.S. members of Congress on Saturday that the U.S. should “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.” Assad’s guests on Saturday included U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who headed the third delegation this week to call on the Syrian president’s door as Washington reviews its policies toward countries the previous administration regarded as hostile.

Assad told his visitors that future relations should be based on a “proper understanding” by Washington of regional issues and on common interests, SANA news agency reported. Dialogue, based on the history of the region and the rights of its peoples, is the only way to understand and resolve problems,” he said.

U.S. summons Syrian ambassador over suspected nuclear activities
www.chinaview.cn 2009-02-21

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (Xinhua) — The State Department on Friday said it has asked Syria’s ambassador to the United States for a meeting next week after processed uranium particles were reportedly found in the country.

Ambassador Imad Moustapha will meet Jeffrey Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, deputy spokesman Gordon Duguid said.

Among U.S. concerns is Syria’s alleged pursuit of nuclear and non-conventional weapons.

A report issued Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said its inspectors found uranium particles in samples taken from an alleged nuclear site in Syria that was bombed by Israel in 2007….

Netanyahu Says Iran Threatens Israel from Northern Border

Hawkish Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday named Iran as Israel’s main threat after accepting the task of forming a new government in the wake of the tight February 20 elections.

“Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence,” he said at a ceremony at President Shimon Peres’ official residence.

“The terrorist forces of Iran threaten us from the north,” the presumptive prime minister said in reference to Lebanon and Syria.

“For decades, Israel has not faced such formidable challenges.

?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ??????
????? ??????: ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????????
??? ?????? ???? ???????? ????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ????????? ???????.

????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? “???? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????, ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????????”.
????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? “????” ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? 2007 ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???????.
????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????, ????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ????.
????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????, ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????, ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????.
???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???

“The responsibility we face is to achieve security for our country, peace with our neighbors and unity among us,” he said.(AFP)
Fox News: U.S. Officials Outraged at U.N. Over Hamas Letter to
2009-02-21 17:14:10.547 GMT

U.S. officials are furious with the United Nations for its role in Hamas’ attempt to enlist U.S. Sen John Kerry to transfer a letter from the Palestinian militant group to President Obama during Kerry’s trip to the Middle East, an official source told FOX News…..The Hamas official who wrote the letter confirmed to FOX News that he wrote Obama personally, asking him not to be biased toward Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and to act fairly. He also said Hamas is ready to talk directly to a new American administration. …

The US has restored trust in the Lebanese Army after the events of May 2008 and Doha. Lebanon buys 225 million worth of out-of-service tanks and cobra helicopters from Jordan as part of US military aid package. Now it must service them and put them into operation in order to fit the Lebanese army to take on Hizbullah. (Thanks FLC). In Al Akhbar:

?? ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ??????
?? ??????. ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ????????
??????? ???? ????? ??? ??????. ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????
???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????
?????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????
????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? 66 M60 ????? ?? ???? ??????????
?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??????.
???? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????
?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????????? ?????
?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? 225 ????? ????? ??????. ???? ????? ??????
?????????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????
??????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????.??? ????? ????? ?????
?? ??? 2008 ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ??
???? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????
????????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????
????????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??
??? ??? ??????? ?????.???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ?? ????????
????? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???
?????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??????.???????? ????????
????????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ???
???????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ???????
????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????????
??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???.?? ??? ?????
?????????? ???????

U.S. to prod Syrian envoy on support of terrorism, suspected nuclear program
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Ambassador Imad Moustapha is to meet with Jeffrey D. Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, at Feltman’s request, Duguid said. Clinton is not scheduled to participate.

“Our concerns include Syria’s support to terrorist groups and networks, Syria’s pursuit of nuclear and nonconventional weaponry, interference in Lebanon and a worsening human rights situation,” Duguid said.

—————-

And this is a Syrian response in Arabic (from Champress), but to summarize “if you want to talk to us this way then don’t waste your time and ours.

????? ???? ???? ?????? ? ???????? ??????????.. ???? : ??? ?????

???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???????… ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ? ??? ????? ??????? ???? – ??? ?????? – ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????.. ? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ? ?????? .. ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??????..
???… ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ? ???? ?? ???????? ? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???????????? .
???????…??? ?? [ ??????? ] ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? [ ???????? ]…
??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ? ????? ? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? !! ?? ??? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? : ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? .. ? ??? ! ??? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???? ??????? ???? [ ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? .. ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? .. ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? .. ? ??? ????? ???.!! ].
? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? [ ??????????? ] ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????!!.. ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ? ???? ??? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ? ??????? .. ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ? ???? ??? ??? .. ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????????!! ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? [ ??????? ??????? !] ???? ???? ?????? ? ??????? ? ????? ???? ? ???? ??? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ???.. ? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? !!.
?? ???????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? [ ????? ] ???? ???? ??? ????? ? ? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? !
????? ???? ? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? !
1 – ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ? ??? ??????? ??? ????? .
2 – ?? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? .
3 – ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????? [ ???? ??? ] ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? 2006 ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ..
?? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ????????? !
4 – ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? !
?????????? – ???? ????? – ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? .. ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? .
????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? – ??????? ??????? – ????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????? 2005 ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????!
5- ?? ??????? ????????? .??? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? – ?? ????? ??? ????? – ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ..
?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ??????? !!
????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ! ??????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? .
?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? – ?? ????? – ?????? ???? ??????? …
???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ! ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????? .
6- ?? ????? ???????? -??????? -????????? . ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????.. ?????? : ??? ??? ????? . ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? .
?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? . ??? ????? ??? ?????? ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?!
??? ?? ?????? … ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? .

Ross’ job, cont’d Ben Smith at Politico

A very interesting piece from CNN’s Elise Labott explains, in greater detail, what had become clear about the delay in laying out the administration’s Iran policy: They’re very concerned about the signal the rollout will send.

Ross’s new job in the State Department won’t be quite what many expected. Rather than being called an “Iran envoy,” Ross will have a title along the lines of Special Adviser to the Secretary of State dealing with Middle East issues.

Senior officials tell us the announcement will come early next week after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returns from Asia.

What’s the difference? The problem with the “envoy” title is expectations. It sets them too high.

Yes, Ross will be handling the Iran portfolio. But “envoy” is such a lofty title that it would suggest that Ross would talk with Iran, and visit Iran, and deal directly with this nation that the State Department has listed as the State Department lists Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism because its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts.

During his campaign, President Obama faced plenty of criticism for saying he’d be willing to talk with Iran.

So Ross will have a more ambiguous title. It might sound smaller — or bigger, depending on how you look at it. But that doesn’t change his job.

The so-called “p5 plus one” — the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia and China) plus Germany — will continue to be the public face of engagement with Iran

But officials say Ross’s mission is to try to develop a back channel to the Iranians, with the aim of reaching solutions — and having talks — someday.

A test for the Israeli lobby – Ben Smith at Politico

The pro-Israel wing of Obama’s supporters has generally been pretty happy with the state of the administration, from Hillary’s appointment to Dennis Ross’ role with Iran. George Mitchell, by downplaying Israeli settlements and stressing Iran policy yesterday, won raves from hawkish Jewish leaders.

But former AIPAC Policy Director Steve Rosen sounded a more strident tone yesterday at Laura Rozen’s report of a new head for the National Intelligence Council, calling the reported choice of Chas Freeman “alarming.”

He disapprovingly quotes Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, saying, “As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected” and decrying the consequences of “Israeli violence against Palestinians.”

It’s not the kind of high-profile appointment that would automatically provoke a broader reaction, so the decision of Jewish organizations whether or not to make a fuss will have a lot to do with how much good will (a lot) Obama has bought over the past two years.

Former Gitmo Guard Tells All
By Scott Horton

Army Private Brandon Neely served as a prison guard at Guantánamo in the first years the facility was in operation. With the Bush Administration, and thus the threat of retaliation against him, now gone, Neely decided to step forward and tell his story. “The stuff I did and the stuff I saw was just wrong,”…..

The Nelly account shows that health professionals are right in the thick of the torture and abuse of the prisoners—suggesting a systematic collapse of professional ethics driven by the Pentagon itself. He describes body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners. This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic

Iraq Wants Progress on Energy Projects With Syria
Reuters, Friday February 20 2009
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis

DAMASCUS, Feb 20 (Reuters) – The Iraqi government plans to speed up multibillion dollar energy projects with Syria that would help end tension between the two neighbours, Iraq’s first ambassador to Syria in almost 30 years said on Friday.

The projects — an oil pipeline linking Kirkuk oilfield to a Mediterranean terminal and developing an Iraqi gas field near Syria — have been delayed, with Baghdad criticising Damascus for what it describes as insufficient cooperation on stopping rebel infiltration across the 600 km (375-mile) border.
“I expect substantial progress. What I heard directly from the leadership of my country is that Iraq is serious and ready to remove the obstacles standing in the way of these two strategic projects,” Ala al-Jawadi told Reuters.

Jawadi, a founder of the Shi’ite Supreme Council For the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, lived in Syria along with scores of exiled Iraqi opposition leaders during Saddam Hussein’s rule.

“I will not say more because these issues are better resolved away from the spotlight, but we will see major progress,” said Jawadi, who presented his credentials to President Bashar al-Assad this week.
Relations between Iraq and Syria plummeted after Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq in the late 1970s and Iraq launched an eight year war against Iran.

The two countries remained on poor terms after the U.S. invasion of Iraq removed Saddam from power in 2003, although the two sides re-opened embassies in each other’s capitals three years ago.
Syria was a major exporter to Iraq in the last years of Saddam Hussein’s rule. It also helped Iraq bust United Nations sanctions by importing crude oil through the pipeline, which was bombed by U.S. planes during the 2003 invasion.

HARD CURRENCY
Syria, whose oil output fell steadily to 379,000 barrels a day last year, has felt limited economic benefit since the invasion of Iraq and end of sanctions which contributed to the collapse of the Iraqi economy but helped neighbours thrive.

Damascus viewed joint energy projects as crucial — the oil pipeline would net Syria hard currency that would help offset its declining oil production — but Iraq made it clear that they must be accompanied by progress on the security issue.

Iraq invited Russia’s Stroytransgaz in 2007 to submit an offer to re-activate the 300,000 barrel per day Kirkuk-Banias oil export pipeline and raise its capacity but no follow-up was made, industry executives said.

Initial agreements also envisaged developing Iraq’s Akkas gas field and exporting output through an Arab network passing through Syria. Iraqi officials who visited Damascus last year urged Syrian officials to do more on security cooperation for the projects to move forward.

Akkas is one of eight oil and gas fields that Iraq opened to foreign firms to bid for last year. The Iraqi oil ministry said in January it was “preparing the requirements” for a gas pipeline from Akkas to Syria. Jawadi would not be drawn on the security issue, but said Iraq was looking to improve ties with Syria across the board.

“The intention is now sincere from the two countries to move relations where they should be. Economics ties are related to the overall political, social and security picture,” he said.
“We are not taking about a country thousands of kilometres from Iraq. We are talking about a neighbouring country where many of Iraq’s current leaders used to live and many Iraqis (refugees) still live under generous benefits.