Itamar Rabinovich has always been excellent on Syria. His hard nosed analysis does not prevent him from assessing the advantages of a possible peace. He believes Asad may be serious about peace because of domestic pressure. Rabinovich's ultimate goal is to distance Syria from Iran. It is interesting to note that Syria's alliance with Iran has given Damascus new leverage with Israel, a leverage that Syria has not had for many years. President Bush continues to insist that the US can bring Iran (and Syria) down a few notches by tightening relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel. Rabinovich is skeptical of this strategy. Just as he knows there is considerable public pressure in Syria for a closer relationship with the West and for a settlement with Israel, there is considerable public pressure in Saudi, Egypt and Jordan against closer relations with Israel and the US in order to fight what many Arabs still see as an American-Israeli agenda. Although Sunni fears of Iran and Shiites more generally have been fanned in the last few years, the rift between the sects is still not so strong as to "flip" these states. Public opinion will keep their governments from getting in bed with Israel in order to defeat Iran. It only goes to prove how central the Arab-Israeli conflict remains to getting the other problems of the region sorted out. There will be "linkage," whether Israel and the US like it or not. Getting the border issues between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine sorted out cannot be avoided if Washington hopes to gain support for its other undertakings in the region.

Here is the Rabinovich article:

Markers on the route to Damascus
By Itamar Rabinovich
Haaretz, Dec. 29, 2006

In 1974, the Agranat Commission published its report, which examined the principal failure and the secondary failures that led to the Yom Kippur War. Inter alia, the commission recommended that, in order to prevent future mistaken "conceptions," the pluralism of intelligence assessments in Israel should be strengthened by reinforcing the research divisions of the Mossad and the Foreign Ministry. This recommendation was implemented only partially; Military Intelligence maintained its dominance for many years. The authors of the Agranat Report are currently enjoying a late blooming of sorts, as decision makers, Knesset members and the general public are being exposed to public disputes between the heads of the Mossad and of MI's research division.

While the former dismisses "peace offensive" of Syrian President Bashar Assad and his regime, his uniformed colleague regards it in a positive light. Appearing last week before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mossad director Meir Dagan stated that he could not see Syria proposing the renewal of talks with Israel. In contrast, the head of MI's research division, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, this week told the very same committee that Syria's peace signals are genuine.

This disagreement has added to the confusion that has existed regarding a peace agreement with Syria since last summer's second Lebanon War. During the six years preceding that war and after both the collapse of Israeli-American-Syrian talks and Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Israel focused on the Palestinian issue – first on the fighting of the second intifada and then on disengagement from the Gaza Strip. The Lebanon War and the exposure of the threat posed by the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis generated a fundamental debate over the Syrian question. While the war was still in progress, Defense Minister Amir Peretz spoke of the need to renew negotiations with Syria. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appointed a small team to study this issue, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert totally rejects the idea of talks with the Syrians. He has declared that Israel will never withdraw from the Golan Heights and has explained both directly and indirectly that the Bush administration opposes Israeli-Syrian negotiations. In recent days, Olmert has softened his public proclamations on this matter. The two opposing schools in the internal cabinet debate and in the public debate in Israel can be characterized thus:

– Opposition to any peace settlement or talks with Syria. As in every debate on these topics, the disagreement revolves around intentions and capabilities. The opponents of an agreement claim that Syria under Bashar Assad will continue to demand a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in return for a cold peace and partial security arrangements. While some people reject a withdrawal from the Golan in principle, others believe that Assad's intentions are not serious and that his capabilities are limited. In other words, Assad is interested only in talks, not a settlement, because he wants to stop being an isolated pariah. In any event, he is incapable of actually effecting a settlement with Israel. Thus, if Israel agreed to talks with Syria this would create tension with the U.S., alienate the conservative Arab states and heighten domestic tensions, producing no tangible results for Israel and political dividends for Syria.

– Support for Israeli-Syrian talks. This school argues that Assad is interested in serious negotiations with Israel and an agreement and has the will and the ability to effect a settlement. Furthermore, this school argues, it is in Israel's interests to attain a settlement with Syria, even at the cost of withdrawing from the Golan, because it would regularize relations with an important Arab state and potential military enemy; help solve "the Lebanese problem,"; would weaken the Palestinian rejectionist front and may even help Syria to disengage from the Iranian sphere of influence. The U.S. and the conservative Arab states would presumably change their position once they see Iran lose one of its chief levers of influence in the region.

To understand the significance of the debate between the two schools, the respective positions of the three chief players in the Israeli-American-Syrian triangle should be analyzed:

– The Olmert government. Olmert is Ariel Sharon's successor on the Syrian issue as well. Four Israeli prime ministers in the 1990s (Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak) were prepared to withdraw from the Golan in order to reach an agreement with Syria and to base the peace process on the Syrian, rather than the Palestinian, track. Sharon, however, chose to focus on the Palestinian issue and adamantly opposed a Golan withdrawal.

Olmert was elected prime minister on a platform calling for continued disengagement from the Palestinians. Although the Lebanon War temporarily diverted him from this course, he wants to breathe new life into the Palestinian channel. Olmert believes that progress with the Palestinians is vital to building a de facto coalition with the conservative Arab states against the principal threat to both them and Israel – Iran.

However, after trying to free himself from Assad's "peace offensive" for several months, Olmert has modified his thinking and no longer totally rejects the idea; instead, he is stipulating certain preconditions for the initiation of talks. Nonetheless, he clearly still prefers the Palestinian channel. He apparently believes his government lacks the political capacity to achieve a final settlement with Syria, whereas progress can still be made with the Palestinians in the form of interim settlements.

– The Bush administration. President George Bush and the hard core of his administration have opposed in the past, and continue to oppose, the renewal of Israeli-Syrian talks. The Baker-Hamilton report, which calls for talks with Iran and Syria, has in effect been rejected by the administration and has encountered opposition and criticism from other circles as well. President Bush is personally angry with Assad. He holds Assad and his regime responsible for the shedding of American blood in Iraq and considers them the chief threat to the "democratic revolution" in Lebanon, which he regards as one of the major achievements of his ideological foreign policy. In his eyes, the initiation of Israeli-Syrian talks would award a terrorist regime and be a slap in the face to the conservative Arab states that have friendly relations with America. This approach is reinforced by a personal negative attitude toward Assad and a low estimate of his capabilities.

– Assad and his regime. Even without access to intelligence material, one can conclude that Assad personally wants to initiate talks with Israel, and not just because of his desire to end his isolation and to free himself from American and French pressure. Like any other country, Syria has a public opinion, and that public wants to know what the regime is doing to win back the Golan. Egypt has retrieved the Sinai Peninsula, Jordan has ended its conflict with Israel, the Palestinians have attained some partial achievements, and Israel has withdrawn from South Lebanon; however, regarding the Golan, Israel is talking about expanding its construction activities there. The critics of Assad's regime are demanding that it either go to war or initiate negotiations. Assad's capabilities are not all that clear. Some people in the Baath regime oppose the idea of a peace settlement with Israel, arguing that peace and openness will destroy the foundations of both the Baath regime and Alawi rule. This opposition existed even during Hafez Assad's regime; but he was able to exercise power and authority that allowed him to overcome it. (During the last months of his life, the opposition strengthened and came to the surface). Will Bashar be able to neutralize the opponents of a peace settlement if negotiations are launched and if progress is made in those talks? This remains an open question. In light of the above, Israel's policies should rest on three fundamental principles:

– A conditional "yes," not an outright rejection. No Israeli government should ever issue a categorical "no" to an Arab rival that has declared a desire for peace. Nor should preconditions be presented that amount to a de facto rejection. If talks are initiated between Israel and Syria and if progress is made in those talks, Israel could justifiably demand the termination of Syrian aid to Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If such demands were presented as a precondition for the initiation of talks, the response would be a total Syrian refusal.

– Coordination with the U.S. The Bush administration's opposition to negotiations with Syria should not be taken lightly. However, if Israel concludes that such talks make sense and could be beneficial, it can initiate a serious discussion with the Americans on the advantages and drawbacks of such a move. For its part, Washington would not take lightly the serious prospect (if such a prospect emerges) of distancing Damascus from Tehran.

– A discreet inquiry. The three agreements Israel signed with Arab partners (Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians) were attained following clandestine negotiations in which the principles of the arrangement were defined. It would be pointless to embark on full, open negotiations with Syria before a discreet inquiry has been made. It would have to address such key issues as Syria's readiness to make good on its declarations and to end its partnership with Iran as part of a settlement with Israel and a process of reconciliation with the U.S. Two obstacles stand in the way: Syria's desire for public negotiations and the difficulty involved in maintaining secrecy on the Israeli side. The Israeli government has two main options: It can progress along the Palestinian channel, which would make it easier to build a de facto partnership with the conservative Arab states against Iran, or it can initiate talks with Syria, if it emerges that these talks have the potential for distancing Syria from Iran and for distancing Iran from Lebanon. A discreet inquiry with Syria would enable the prime minister to choose between the two options and to broadcast to the Israeli public a clear message that would perhaps put an end to the confusion and havoc that currently prevail.

Prof. Rabinovich is the president of Tel Aviv University, and in the past served as the Israeli ambassador in Washington and the head of the negotiating team with Syria.

Here is Robin Wright elaborating on the Bandar-Turki fight:

Robin Wright in the Washignton Post explains some of the reasons for the tug of war between Saudi Arabia's ambassadors. Bandar's faction was able to cut off Turki's funds, forcing him to leave behind millions in un-paid emabassy debts when he departed the US. The important policy debate which under girded the factionalism was over how to deal with Iran and how much to support Washington's Middle East policy. Here are a few paragraphs from her story. 

The woes within the royal family reflect a tug of war over how to handle foreign policy. Eighteen months ago, Prince Bandar bin Sultan ended a legendary 22-year career as the face of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Word at the time was that he was bored, preferring his palatial Aspen, Colo., lodge to Washington. As it turns out, however, Bandar has secretly visited Washington almost monthly over the past year — and is at least as pivotal today in influencing U.S. policy as he was in his years as ambassador.

Last week, his successor, Turki, abruptly resigned from the post — partly, sources close to the royal family said, because of Bandar's back-channel trips to meet with top U.S. officials, including Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

Turki was kept so out of the loop that Bandar often did not inform him he was in town, much less tell him what he was doing, the sources said. Twice, the Saudi Embassy was told by an outsider that Bandar had arrived — and the embassy sent someone to the airport to look for his private plane to confirm it, according to the source who provided the tip.

The rise of Bandar, who is now Saudi national security adviser, may reflect the waning influence of the sons of the late King Faisal, who dominated the diplomatic and intelligence services for decades, say sources close to the family. Turki, who was intelligence chief before becoming ambassador to Britain and then the United States, has poor chemistry with King Abdullah, they note. His brother Prince Saud al-Faisal, who has been foreign minister since Henry A. Kissinger's era, is ill….

The cutoff of funds appears to be one manifestation of a royal rift over, among other things, the way to handle the rising influence of Iran in the Middle East.

In his secret visits, Bandar increasingly pressed the Bush administration not to deal with Iran — and, instead, to organize joint efforts to counter Iran's growing influence in the Middle East, such as in Lebanon, said sources close to the royal family. The new model would be based roughly on the kind of joint U.S.-Saudi cooperation that assisted anti-Soviet forces during Moscow's 1979-1989 occupation of Afghanistan, the sources said.

Washington and Riyadh are already planning a major aid and military training package for the beleaguered Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, whose government is besieged by thousands of supporters of Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

The Sunni kingdom sees Iran as a threat because of Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons program. The kingdom also fears the shifting balance of power — under Iran's tutelage — between minority Shiites and majority Sunnis, who have dominated Middle East politics for almost 14 centuries. The monarchy faces its own restive Shiite minority in the main oil-producing province.

The kingdom grew particularly alarmed as the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group began to leak out last month, with recommendations that the administration talk to both Iran and Syria, say U.S. officials and sources close to the royal family. Even before the report was released, Abdullah summoned Cheney to again warn about Iran and the regional implications of its growing influence — and offer Saudi assistance and discuss joint U.S.-Saudi efforts.

The al-Faisal brothers, in contrast, have consistently urged dialogue with Tehran and are wary of joint U.S.-Saudi efforts against Iran and its surrogates. Turki often urged the United States to deal with its enemies. In one of his final public speeches, at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council last month, Turki said: "We speak directly with Iran on all issues. We find that talking with them is better than not talking with them."

Turki's frequent public events — in which he was frank about America's poor image abroad and urged progress on the deadlocked Arab-Israeli peace process as the key to defusing broader regional tensions — generated an unusual amount of attention in the Saudi media and made him a popular figure back home.

Saudi experts say differences within the royal family, like virtually everything having to do with the House of Saud, are heavily nuanced. "On Iran policy, they all make the same diagnosis but have a different prescription for what to do about it," said David E. Long, a former U.S. diplomat and the author of five books on Saudi Arabia.

After a year of internal tensions and failure to pay bills, Turki was not invited to Riyadh for Cheney's visit, Saudi sources confirmed. And Bandar returned to Washington again right after the meeting to discuss the specifics of the joint efforts. Two weeks later, Turki quit.

Report on secret Olmert-Sanyurah meeting in Egypt (mideastwire.com)

Syria's 'isolation is over': Syria's Deputy P.M. spins that Syria's has broken out of its isolation
23/12/2006 08:32  – (SA) 

London – The international isolation of Syria is over as Western powers have realised they need to work with Damascus, Syrian deputy prime minister Abdallah Dardari told a British newspaper published on Saturday.

Dardari told the Financial Times business daily that the international community now recognised that it ought to talk to President Bashar al-Assad's regime if it wanted progress in the Middle East, particularly on Lebanon and Iraq.

"The former political isolation of Syria has ended. It is no longer there," he told the FT.

"I don't want to say there is a sense of 'I told you so' but there is a sense that people are realising in Western capitals that if you want to be influential in the Middle East, you have to come through Damascus."

Relations between the United States and Syria are tense. But earlier this week, two US senators, including John Kerry, the former Democratic party presidential candidate, were in Damascus for talks with Assad.

Dardari said that previously, the United States had simply presented Syria with a list of demands to end various practices, instead of talking about mutual interests, and that this attitude proved ineffective.

"It didn't work in April 2003, just after (the) occupation of Baghdad. If it didn't work then, at the peak of US influence in the region, it will not work now with Syria," he said.

Dardari added that Syria's priority was to secure the return of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967.

The United States said Wednesday it supported Syrian opposition groups rivalling Assad, but said such support was overt, and not a secret bid to undermine his government.

US President George W Bush has dismissed calls for a direct US dialogue with Syria, which Washington accuses of letting extremists into Iraq and undermining Lebanon's fragile democracy by funding and training the militant Hezbollah group.

The Syrian government daily Ath-Thawra hit out on Friday at terms set out by the US government for heeding a bi-partisan panel's recommendation to open a dialogue on calming neighbouring Iraq.

The paper was following a line already set out by Assad.

"They (the Americans) have to differentiate between a dialogue and giving instructions. We are open to a dialogue, but we will not take instructions," Assad said earlier this month.

??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? «????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????» ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ?? ??????. ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? «????? ????? ? ????»? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????.???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? «????? ???» ?? ????? «??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ????????? ????????»? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????. ????? ???? «??? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? (?????? ?????????) ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????… ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???????». ????? ???? «?? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? … ???? ???? ???? ???????????? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????».   

Could the US be Planning Covert Action in Lebanon and beyond? Some fanciful speculation.

Read the leaked story from Swoop copied below. In effect it suggests that Elliot Abrams and associates at the NSC have been working with Bandar bin Sultan on a covert action operation involving support to paramilitary rivals of Hizballah in Lebanon, with Israeli foreknowledge and approval.  The core of the story is in line with recent speculations I have been engaged in with some Middle East insiders. The speculation goes something like this: The NSC diehards and Bandar (with Israeli coordination) have been working on a covert action program, the purpose of which is to strike back at Iran through surrogates, with the arrangements made in such a way as to obviate the need for a Presidential Covert Action Finding, which in today's Washington could not be kept secret. The Saudis would play the role of paymasters and prospective unindicted co-conspirators in case the operation is exposed (which seems to be the likely outcome). The leaking of the Syria MEPI money story to Time Magazine and this story to Swoop suggest some Washington insiders are worried that Cheney and the NSC are up to a hairball scheme which would only sink the US into further Middle East troubles.

Here is the story leaked to a Swoop reporter.

Iraq and the Wider Middle East: The Administration’s Counter Attack
Published on: December 22nd 2006 13:14:58, in Swoop

During his current consultations on the new strategy for Iraq, President Bush has told those advising him that he is not interested in any proposals that do not involve “success.” “Anyone who does not believe in victory should leave the room right now,” was how he began one consultation session. Top National Security Council officials are describing the Iraq Study Group as “discredited” and “dead and buried.”  Instead a new policy is taking shape. Based on recent discussions between former Saudi Ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan and NSC Middle East Director Elliott Abrams, this policy foresees a central role for Saudi Arabia as a supplier of money and weapons to local conflicts involving Iranian surrogates. This is already happening in Lebanon, where anti-Hezbollah groups are receiving substantial Saudi help. Israeli intelligence officials are also encouraging these moves. “What we are seeing here,” a second NSC official commented, “s the Administration’s counter-attack to the ISG. Bush wants to negotiate from strength not weakness. He is trying to create new facts on the ground. This is an ambitious strategy. If it works, it allows us to recover much of the ground that Iraq has cost us. The opposite is also true. This strategy could double our losses. The key point here is that the Administration is still playing for a win in the Middle East. It is not leaving quietly.

It is too early to make predictions, but this could be another Iran Contra — a deliberate attempt to circumvent legal procedures for Covert Action.

There are a number of reasons to believe that President Bush and the Security Council are preparing covert action in Lebanon in order to regain the offensive in the Middle East.

The sudden unannounced departure of Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki suggests that Saudi Arabia will be the financier of this operation. Prince Bandar bin Sultan's return to Washington in the form of his young protégé, Adel al-Jubeir. Polished and American-educated, Mr. Jubeir, 44, once worked for Prince Bandar when he was ambassador to Washington. Over the past few months, we know that Prince Bandar has been visiting Washington frequently, staying at the Hay Adams Hotel and visiting people at the White House.  He was not notifying Prince Turki of these visits, which has been a flagrant and insulting breach of diplomatic protocol, to say nothing of its personal discourtesy to his own brother-in-law. 

Another curiosity has been the repeated rumors of a meeting between Bandar and some unidentified Israelis, time and place unspecified. (The strongest rumor was that one meeting took place in Amman last summer.) The rumors have been persistent, and deserve some credence.

Addendum: Dec. 24, 2006: Some of the post has been taken down for re-editing.

Sami Moubayed, writing for World Politics Watch, "What Can Syria Deliver in Iraq?" discusses what assistance Syria may be be able to offer to the United States towards decreasing the violence in Iraq. Here is a section of the interesting report:

The United States wants cooperation in Iraq. Syria wants a free hand in Lebanon. The Syrians believe that if they can give on Iraq, then they can take on Lebanon.

But can Syria really give on Iraq? It was easy for Syria to control Lebanon from 1990 until 2005 because Syria had the money, the connections, the business network, the political entanglements, the military might, and it knew the country well. Syria has none of that in Iraq. It influence parts of the Sunni street, through former Baathists who are based in Damascus or supportive of Syria, but it has no control over Iraqi tribes. That is why it has began to court Syrian tribesmen, who have connections and relations with their cousins in Iraq, hoping that they can serve as a stepping stone toward the Iraqi Sunni street. Most of the new leaders of Iraq, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Malki and President Jalal Talbani, were based in Syria during the Saddam years, but their acquaintance is of little value to the Syrians since they are not the Sunni leaders of the insurgency, nor are they community leaders in Sunni Iraq. Former Baathists like Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, on the other hand, are close to Syria and could curb part of the insurgency.

Another problem is that the Iraq insurgency is not 100 percent Sunni. According to CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, the Sunni tribesmen and former Baathists who are carrying arms against the Americans number "in the low tens of thousands." The number of Sunni al-Qaida fighters in the 40,000-strong insurgency is only 1,400. The rest of the insurgency is Shiite, over which Syria has absolutely no control. The keys to that insurgency are in Iran. And even within the Sunni street, Syria does not have total control because a large proportion of Iraqi Sunnis are loyal to, or on the payroll of, Saudi Arabia. As long as Syria and Saudi Arabia are experiencing a rough political relationship, due to their conflicting interests in Lebanon, the loyalties of the Iraqi Sunni street will remain divided between Damascus and Riyadh.

Nawaf Obeid, a security analyst and adviser to the Saudi government, recently wrote a very telling article in the Washington Post in which he said there will "be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis." Obeid added, "The Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraqi policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps) with the same type of assistance — funding, arms, logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years." If Saudi Arabia does this, then it would hamper any Syrian efforts to calm the Sunni street.

As long as Saudi Arabia remains supportive of the anti-Syrian majority leader in Lebanon, Saad al-Harriri, then the chances of Riyadh-Damascus reconciliation are minimal, to say the least. The chances of rapprochement were further damaged on Dec. 7 when Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah gave a thundering speech in Beirut, accusing the Saudi-backed March 14 coalition of having collaborated with Israel against Hezbollah during the July-August Israeli war. Nasrallah, who remains very close to Syria, accused the ruling coalition of treason. He called for the downfall of Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora as masses of anti-Siniora demonstrators continued their Beirut sit-in, aimed at bringing down the Harriri administration….

On the same site, also see the interesting article outlining EU attitudes toward Syria and the German Minister of Foreign Affairs recent visit to Damascus.

Flynt Leverett, who wrote "Inheriting Syria," has been muzzled by the White House. The Washington Post reports that Ex-NSC Official Says White House Is Stifling His Criticism of Iran Policy. Big hunks of an op-ed for the NYTimes were censored for security reasons even though they had already been published in an earlier article and passed CIA censors. Leverett also takes a swipe at Kenneth Pollack, the author Gathering Storm, the breathy scare job that helped the US take the leap into Iraq. New York Sun's Eli Lake comes to Pollack's defense and flings mud at Leverett in his American Dissident? December 20, 2006. Here is a bit –

Now he [Leverett] poses as a victim. In his remarks he derided the individual who fired him from his brief stint at the Brookings Institution, Kenneth Pollack, who wrote in an op-ed for the Times, which the CIA approved this month, that Iran had provided help to America in Afghanistan. Because Mr. Pollack wrote a book in 2002 claiming Iraq was concealing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs before the war, he was allowed to write for the Times, according to Mr. Leverett.

MARTIN KRAMER in his latest intervention at WINEP on Democracy Promotion prescribes a delightful "plan B." [addendum Dec. 21: I originally wrote this section suggesting that the quoted material was Martin's actual words. They are not. Martin's actual words were summarized by a rapporteur.] The rapporteur explains that Kramer judiciously, explained that the notion of freedom "cannot be applied indiscriminately, because in some places it might make things worse and contradict U.S. interests." In particular, the U.S. should "downplay this policy dimension" when it comes to our friends, such as "Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt" because they can be of "considerable utility," Rather, it is our enemies who should get the gift of "the U.S. democracy rhetoric," in particular countries such as "Iran and Syria," for whom the "rhetoric" was originally intended and where "the issue of freedom of identity is most acute." The rapporteur continues with his summation:

There needs to be a basic distinction in the region between homogenous societies and diverse societies — and different rules will apply to each. The notion of freedom of identity cannot be applied indiscriminately, because in some places it might make things worse and contradict U.S. interests.

Now the state system in parts of the Middle East is coming under tremendous pressure. Iraq is of course the prime example, but similar processes may begin elsewhere. Some of the borders now printed on maps could become so weak as to become virtual; other lines may become actual borders. Although the United States has consistently been committed to maintaining existing borders, it may not have the power to do so.

Sen. John Kerry emerged from his meeting Wednesday with Syrian President Bashar Assad even more resolute in his belief the United States must begin talks with Damascus as it seeks a solution to the turmoil in Iraq. “We explored the whys and wherefores of a number of the choices he’s been making,” said Kerry of the Assad meeting.

“I feel quite confident in saying this was a conversation worth having and that the (Bush) administration ought to pursue it,” Kerry said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Jerusalem, where he traveled after meeting with Assad in Syria. “I feel very strongly about that. … It’s worth following up on a number of avenues.” 

Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., both prospective 2008 presidential candidates, met with Assad for about two hours as part of a Mideast trip. Kerry described the meeting as “a candid and thorough discussion.”

Kerry said he and Dodd “tried to understand what (Assad) might or might not be prepared to do” in relation to Iraq. Kerry said it is important to at least begin a dialogue with Syria. “It’s a question of finding out what they say,” Kerry said. “These things are step by step.”

Kerry said he and Dodd are prepared to brief Bush administration officials about their meeting, and did not want to share specifics of their talk with Assad until they had done so. “I certainly came away with a sense that it’s worth pursuing as a dialogue,” Kerry said. “It’s worth following up on, on a number of avenues. It certainly validated the judgment of the Iraq Study Group.”

David Hammerstein, the EU Parliament member who visited Syria this week, had a similar message. He said "Syria's peace intentions are genuine and insisted that Israel would be missing an important oportunity if it doesn't respond to Syria's offers.

The Syrian moves opposite Iraq, including in the renewal of diplomatic relations between the two states, the improvement of the relations with Turkey and in the fact that the Syrians did not thwart the deployment of the international force in Lebanon testify to the fact that this is not a Syrian manipulation, Hammerstain explained.

Hammerstein said he believed Israel and the West must listen to Syria, as they will eventually be able to bring about a change in its support – from Iran and Hizbullah to the West. This is the time to take advantage of the window of opportunity and the Syrians must be given a chance, he urged, concluding that Olmert would be making a big mistake by missing this opportunity.

Israeli calls for dialogue with Syria can be found in the following articles: Haaretz editorial Dont Turn Syria Away; Akiva Eldar in Haaretz, Assad’s Fatal Attraction explains that Israelis and Syrians will meet in Spain next month. Yoel Marcus also in Haaretz writes First, say yes. (thanks Alex); David Hale and Lyric Hughes Hale write in USA Today, "A two-way street with Syria."

There are also many who believe talking to Syria would be a mistake. Here are a few

Mossad Chief Dagan: Syria "More Willing Now Than Ever Before" to take military action against Israel…. Zionist Organization of America (press release)
Israeli-Syria Talks Would Be About Golan Heights, Not Peace, Some …
CNSNews.com
William Harris in the National Review Online, recommends helping to nurture a coup d'etat in Syria. "Regime change in Syria will mean Iran losing its main ally in the Arab world and its conduit to Hezbollah in Lebanon…

Under such pressure the most likely scenario in Damascus would be a move from within the army and the intelligence services to displace the present ruling clique, followed by establishment of a new regime incorporating opposition elements, including the Sunni "Muslim Brotherhood." Contrary to self-serving scaremongering by the present Syrian regime, there is little chance that religious fanatics would take power in Syria. The Baathist dictatorship has fragmented all opposition. Indeed, the new ruling clique, apart from being friendly to the West and cooperative on the Iraqi border, would doubtless roll back the current Iranian presence in Syria and hunt down militant Islamist splinters co-opted by the present regime.

Secretary Rice in a long press conference was dead set against dialogue with Syria because the price would be Syrian influence in Lebanon, which the US is not prepared to conceed. She said of Syria:

they're looking for compensation to do that and that's a problem. Because when you go to the table, particularly in the circumstances now where you're going and saying, please, help us with the stability of Iraq, the potential that what they're really looking for is compensation. And then you have to ask — it's very high — and then you have to say, what is that compensation? Well, on the Syrian side, I suspect that the highest priorities are being played out in the streets of Lebanon including about the tribunal, including about Syrian power in Lebanon.  

On the economic front:
Syria is finally getting a postal service! It is high time. Mail is not delivered to private homes or businesses in Syria, which means everyone must go to a mailbox in a post office, which few bother to own. one cannot pay bills through the mail but must pay them in person. Unbelievable. The UNDP is to modernize Syria's postal services. It has signed an agreement with the Syrian Government that will bring UNDP expertise to reform Syria's postal services. Read

At a time when Iraqi Insurgents are Starving Baghdad of Electricity, Syria's Ministry of Electricity has awarded Iran's Parsian a contract to set up five power transmission plants in Aleppo. Read. Baghdad has been all but isolated electrically, and attempts to repair power lines are falling behind attacks on the grid.

Iran is not nervous about the US "flipping Syria" (Thanks Alex)

Al-Hayat quotes Iran’s ambassador to Syria as saying that Iran is not nervous about the possiblity of Syria improving relations with Europe. On the contrary, he insisted, "it is Syria's right to seek improved relations with all countries." He claimed that "Syria has consistant and firm principles in it decisions so Iran does not fear the weakening of its relations with Syria. Since the days of Hafiz al-Asad, Syria has been trying to get back the Golan Heights. The return of the Heights is not only a goal of Syria, but it is also a goal of Iran," he said.

???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ?????: «?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????. ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????????. ????? ?? ????? (?????) ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? – ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????. ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????». ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???: «??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????. ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ????

The International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former U.S. officials, issued a report on Iraq strategy today. It calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago. The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region."

The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.

The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps: First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise.

Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.

Poll: Arabs more negative toward U.S.

Survey underscores need for shift in U.S. Mideast policy, expert finds

Reuters

Updated: 11:19 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2006

WASHINGTON – A new survey shows Arab attitudes toward American people, products and culture grew increasingly negative last year, a finding that underscores the need for a change in U.S. Mideast policy, a leading expert on the region said on Thursday.

James Zogby, the head of the Arab American Institute, said the annual survey of opinion in five Arab countries found that U.S. policy toward Iraq and the Palestinian conflict were the main issues driving deteriorating Arab opinion.

"Our policies have not only had a worsening impact in terms of attitudes towards us but also in dampening confidence in the prospects for development and political stability and are therefore, I think, a real concern to countries in the region," Zogby said.

In previous years, Americans themselves had been viewed positively in most Arab countries, his group said.

President Bush is said to be preparing a change of course for the Iraq war after a bipartisan panel said U.S. strategy was not working and warned that Washington was losing its influence in the region.

The panel, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, also called for a renewed U.S. effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a way to defuse regional tensions.

"What the poll says to me is Baker-Hamilton are right," Zogby said.

"If America wants to salvage itself and improve its standing and get the credibility and legitimacy it needs to lead in Iraq, it needs to do something to earn the trust of allies in the broader region," he said.

The survey released by the Arab American Institute found that more than 80 percent of people in Saudi Arabia and Egypt had negative opinions of the United States, similar to previous years, but attitudes worsened in Morocco, Jordan and Lebanon.

The biggest increases were in Jordan, where negative U.S. ratings climbed to 90 percent from 62 percent and Morocco, where they grew to 87 percent from 64 percent.

Attitudes toward American people, movies and democracy were more negative than positive in most of the five countries.

Only U.S. education was viewed more positively than negatively in the five countries.

Notably, residents had negative attitudes toward most U.S. policy in the region. Opinions were most negative about the Iraq war and the Palestinian conflict, but also opposed the United States' policy on Lebanon, its promotion of democracy in the region and its challenge of Iran's nuclear program.

The surveys were conducted in mid-November in face-to-face interviews. Sample size ranged from 600 to 800 in each country, and the margin of error for each sample was between 3.5 percent and 4.7 percent.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

ADAM ZAGORIN writing in Time Magazine, Syria in Bush's Crosshairs, was leaked a classified document explaining the strategy behind the MEPI money that has been allocated to boost the Syrian opposition. Most of the money seems to have been well spent. Ammar Abdulhamid, who is the only recipient of the MEPI money named in the report, is an honest and capable democracy advocate. What is more, he has from the beginning been very forthright about receiving MEPI money, having announced his successful application at a number of public forums. He is using it to expand the excellent work of the Tharwa Project, an on-line think tank that researches minority affairs and other Middle East problems and which brings together some of the best intellectuals working in the region. 

There were only a small number of Syrian opposition figures who could or would accept US money for their efforts. The combative political relationship between Damascus and Washington makes it very difficult for anyone inside Syria to take US money.  

Here is the story: "Exclusive: A classified document suggests the Administration is considering a plan to fund political opposition to the Damascus government. Some critics say it would be an unwarranted covert action."

Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2006
The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document which says that the U.S. already is "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."

The document says that Syria's legislative elections, scheduled for March 2007, "provide a potentially galvanizing issue for… critics of the Assad regime." To capitalize on that opportunity, the document proposes a secret "election monitoring" scheme, in which "internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries." The proposal also calls for surreptitiously giving money to at least one Syrian politician who, according to the document, intends to run in the election. The effort would also include "voter education campaigns" and public opinion polling, with the first poll "tentatively scheduled in early 2007."

American officials say the U.S. government has had extensive contacts with a range of anti-Assad groups in Washington, Europe and inside Syria. To give momemtum to that opposition, the U.S. is giving serious consideration to the election- monitoring scheme proposed in the document, according to several officials. The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: "You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government."

Some critics in Congress and the Administration say that such a plan, meant to secretly influence a foreign government, should be legally deemed a "covert action," which by law would then require that the White House inform the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill. Some in Congress would undoubtedly raise objections to this secret use of publicly appropriated funds to promote democracy.

The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.

"Democracy promotion" has been a focus of both Democratic and Republican administrations, but the Bush White House has been a particular booster since 9/11. Iran contra figure Elliott Abrams was put in charge of the effort at the National Security Council. Until recently, Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the Vice President, oversaw such work at the State Department. In the past, the U.S. has used support for "democracy building" to topple unfriendly dictators, including Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Ukraine's Vladimir Kuchma. 

However, in order to make the "election monitoring" plan for Syria effective, the proposal makes clear that the U.S. effort will have to be concealed: "Any information regarding funding for domestic [Syrian] politicians for elections monitoring would have to be protected from public dissemination," the document says. But American experts on "democracy promotion" consulted by TIME say it would be unwise to give financial support to a specific candidate in the election, because of the perceived conflict of interest. More ominously, an official familiar with the document explained that secrecy is necessary in part because Syria's government might retaliate against anyone inside the country who was seen as supporting the U.S.-backed election effort. The official added that because the Syrian government fields a broad network of internal spies, it would almost certainly find out about the U.S. effort, if it hasn't already. That could lead to the imprisonment of still more opposition figures.

Any American-orchestrated attempt to conduct such an election-monitoring effort could make a dialogue between Washington and Damascus — as proposed by the Iraq Study Group and several U.S. allies — difficult or impossible. The entire proposal could also be a waste of effort; Edward P. Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who worked on the Iraq Study Group report, says that Syria's opposition is so fractured and weak that there is little to be gained by such a venture. "To fund opposition parties on the margins is a distraction at best," he told TIME. "It will only impede the better option of engaging Syria on much more important, fundamental issues like Iraq, peace with Israel, and the dangerous situation in Lebanon."

Others detect another goal for the proposed policy. "Ever since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Syria opposed, the Bush Administration has been looking for ways to squeeze the government in Damascus," notes Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma. "Syria has appeared to be next on the Administration's agenda to reform the greater Middle East." Landis adds: "This is apparently an effort to gin up the Syrian opposition under the rubric of 'democracy promotion' and 'election monitoring,' but it's really just an attempt to pressure the Syrian government" into doing what the U.S. wants. That would include blocking Syria's border with Iraq so insurgents do not cross into Iraq to kill U.S. troops; ending funding of Hizballah and interference in Lebanese politics; and cooperating with the U.N. in the investigation of the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Senior Syrian government officials are considered prime suspects in Hariri case.

Money for the election-monitoring proposal would be channeled through a State Department program known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative, or MEPI. According to MEPI's website, the program passes out funds ranging between $100,000 and $1 million to promote education and women's empowerment, as well as economic and political reform, part of a total allocation of $5 million for Syria that Congress supported earlier this year.

MEPI helps funnel millions of dollars every year to groups around the Middle East intent on promoting reforms. In the vast majority of cases, beneficiaries are publicly identified, as financial support is distributed through channels including the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit affiliated with the Democratic Party, and the International Republican Institute (IRI), which is linked to the GOP. In the Syrian case, the election-monitoring proposal identifies IRI as a "partner" — although the IRI website, replete with information about its democracy promotion elsewhere in the world, does not mention Syria. A spokesperson for IRI had no comment on what the organization might have planned or underway in Syria, describing the subject as "sensitive."

U.S. foreign policy experts familiar with the proposal say it was developed by a "democracy and public diplomacy" working group that meets weekly at the State department to discuss Iran and Syria. Along with related working groups, it prepares proposals for the higher-level Iran Syria Operations Group, or ISOG, an inter-agency body that, several officials said, has had input from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, deputy National Security Council advisor Elliott Abrams and representatives from the Pentagon, Treasury and U.S. intelligence. The State Department's deputy spokesman, Thomas Casey, said the election-monitoring proposal had already been through several classified drafts, but that "the basic concept is very much still valid."  

Addendum (Dec. 20, 2006): The following note was sent to me by an old Mid East CIA hand:

This story may qualify speculative ideas about impending covert action (of the coup d'etat variety) against Syria.  It suggests that "democracy promotion" (albeit with a strong covert action component) may be considered a more promising course, at least for the time being.  Still, the consequences of such tactics could be critically damaging to the prospects of engaging Syria constructively in the region — and, on a much larger scale, to America's credibility and moral standing everywhere.  Disclosure that the U.S. is planning to provide covert support to specific individuals or parties in a "free and democratic election" in an Arab country would have the effect, it seems obvious to me, of tarnishing the results of any other democratic elections held anywhere in the region —  like Iraq and Palestine, for instance, where the legitimacy of elected governments is crucial to the success of President Bush's strategic plans.  Covert action of this sort does not work out to the benefit of either democratic institution-building or of U.S. credibility in the long run, believe me.  I know this from personal experience.  I've been there, and done that. As I have said openly elsewhere, it has created long-lasting legacies of distrust and cynicism among Arabs toward American intentions and actions, as well as toward our professed political ideals.  It has poisoned America's image and undermined higher national objectives in several places in the Middle East over the past decades.

Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria
Ynet, 16 Dec. 2006
by Yitzhak Benhorin
(Thanks to Joe M.)

They are a unified group of American intellectuals, who held key positions in Bush administration and were blamed for getting US into Iraq. Most of them are Jews, so they are obviously accused of risking America in favor of Israel. Israeli Meyrav Wurmser claims that if situation is bad, Israelis are also to blame

WASHINGTON – It hasn't been a good year for neocons, that group of conservative American intellectuals pulling some strings of US policy, particularly during the George W. Bush administration.

The strongest indictment against them is the war in Iraq, a quagmire in which the US is currently stuck up to its neck. And as Bush's days in the White House grow numbered, they are leaving one by one.

Among the few remaining neocons is David Wurmser, an advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle  Eastern affairs. Wurmser is a Middle East expert, just like his wife, Israeli Meyrav Wurmser, a researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute.

Meyrav Wurmser was also one of the co-founders of MEMRI, which tracks Arab leaders and translating their political statements from Arabic to English.

Despite the fact that many neocons are no longer part of the government, it turns out they're still one big happy family, who make sure to remain in touch.

Many are Jews, who share a love for Israel . Some of the accusations against the government regarding the war in Iraq is that it was undertaken primarily for Israel's sake and that the attack on Iraq was actually an Israeli objective.

In an interview with Ynet, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser refutes the accusations and criticism.

"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."

What are you trying to achieve?

"We believe in a strong and active American foreign policy. America is a good force in the world, a nation that believes in freedom. We believe in exporting American ideas of freedom and democracy, to promote greater stability."

Did you, in practice, bring about the war in Iraq?

"We expressed ideas, but the policy in Iraq was taken out of neocon hands very quickly. The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere.

"The objective was to change the face of the Middle East. But it was impossible to create a mini-democracy amidst a sea of dictatorships looking to destroy this poor democracy, and thus, where do insurgents in Iraq come from? From Iran and Syria ."

Should they have been conquered?

"No. There was a need for massive political action, of threats and pressure on these governments, financial pressure, for example. The sanctions on Syria were nothing. There was a period of time when the Syrians were afraid that they were next. It would have been possible to use this momentum in a smarter way. There's no need to go in militarily."

Everyone feels beaten after last 5 years

At their prime, the neocons held the reigns of American decision making. In the Pentagon, there were Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, and Harold Rhode, a senior Pentagon advisor on Islam.

In the vice president's office were Louis Libby and John Hannah. Richard Perle headed the committee advising to the Pentagon. In the White House were Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams and Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who later became the US ambassador to the UN.

Iraq. Today it's already a disaster

According to Wurmser's description, the group is comprised of academics, most of them lacking operational experience, who became part of the Bush administration but failed to get their ideas through bureaucracy.

"These are intellectuals who came with great ideas, in which I still believe, but did not find a way to promote their beliefs in the complexities of bureaucracy," she says.

Your people held senior positions in the Pentagon. Didn’t Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith implement your theories?

"The final decisions were no in their hands. In the Pentagon, the decisions were in the hands of the military, and the political leadership had a lot of clashes with the military leadership."

Did the military leadership ask for more soldiers in Iraq?

"Rumsfeld prevented that. He was a failure. The State Department opposed the neocons' stances. Also John Bolton, who is also part of the family, and was no. 4 at the State Department under Colin Powell, was incapable of passing decisions…

"Powell curbed our ideas and they did not pass. There was a lot of frustration over the years in the administration because we didn’t feel we were succeeding.

"Now Bolton left (the UN – Y.B.) and there are others who are about to leave. This administration is in its twilight days. Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money… We all feel beaten after the past five years… We miss the peace and quiet and writing books…

"When you enter the administration you have to keep your mouth shut. Now many will resume their writing… Now, from the outside, they will be able to convey all the criticism they kept inside."

In the meantime you left the US inside Iraq?

"We did not bring the US into Iraq in such a way. Our biggest war which we lost was the idea that before entering Iraq we must train an exile Iraqi government and an Iraqi military force, and hand over the rule to them immediately after the occupation and leave Iraq. That was our idea and it was not accepted."

Your man was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later suspected of spying for Iran?

"That is true, but we didn’t want him as a dictator but as a person in a government that will act democratically… We must help the current democratic government. The borders with Iran and Syria should have been blocked immediately when we entered Iraq. Now it's already a disaster."

Why didn’t you attack Syria?

Many of Wurmser's friends believe the disaster is not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. They are also very frustrated over the way in which Israel embarked on the war against Hizbullah this summer, and on the way it returned from it.

"Hizbullah defeated Israel in the war. This is the first war Israel lost," Dr. Wurmser declares.

IDF in Lebanon

Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war?

"Yes, there is no doubt. It's not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel."

What caused the anger?

"I know this will annoy many of your readers… But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."

Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?

"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.

"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space… They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."

"It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.

"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended."

Wurmser says that what most frustrates her is hearing people close to decision makers in Israel asking her if the US would have let Israel attack Syria.

"No one would have stopped you. It was an American interest. They would have applauded you. Think why you received so much time and space to operate. Rice was in the region and Israel embarrassed her with Qana, and still Israel got more time. Why aren't they reading the map correctly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?"

Israeli cabinet split over Assad overtures

JERUSALEM, Dec. 17 (UPI) — Israel's cabinet was divided Sunday over Syrian President Bashar Assad's call to return to the negotiating table.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Assad urged a renewal of peace negotiations with Israel, saying Damascus would cooperate with Washington to resolve regional issues.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem added an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights was no longer a precondition for talks, Israel's YNet News reported.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the cabinet he stood by his stance that, before opening negotiations, Israel expected Syria to renounce terrorism and stop supporting "extremist influences," such as Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

In contrast, Defense Minister Amir Peretz called on the cabinet to hold an emergency discussion about Assad's and Moallem's comments.

He said talking with Syria could improve the countries' relations and weaken Syria's ties to Hezbollah.

"Every agreement comes with a price tag, and in the Syrian context the price is clear," Peretz said. "The question is whether it is strategically important for us to disconnect Syria from the radical axis and prevent it from cooperating with Hezbollah.

Olmert: Israel mustn't undermine US stance on Syria

Prime minister tells cabinet Israel should refrain from talks with Syria at this point in time, as not to go against the United States' stance regarding Damascus

Ronny Sofer

Calls for a renewal of the peace negotiations between Syria and Israel by Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Moalem this weekend, left Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unimpressed.

Olmert continues to stand by his stance that the conditions for talks with Syria have not yet matured.

"The question that should be asked is why Assad made these declarations after the Baker report was published in Washington, after (President George W.) Bush made a strong statement on the matter, and when the entire international community demands that the Syrians stop their war mongering and acts against the Siniora government in Lebanon ," the PM stated.

Olmert told his cabinet he doubts talks with Syria would be the wise step to take at a time when the international community was pushing for pressuring Khaled Mashaal in Syria.

However, what apparently stands behind Olmert's reluctance to accept Syria's overtures for dialogue are United States pressures. At the cabinet meeting, Olmert asked whether now was a good time for Israel to express views that go against those of the American president, while Bush is engaged in hard internal-political battles, as well as wars in Iraq and other places.

'Question is what Israel gets from Syria'

Olmert reminded the ministers that the US was Israel's most important ally, and that the state has a strategic relationship with it.

"The question is not what we give to Assad – Barak and Bibi made him offers in the past – but what Israel gets in return. Can Israel, under today's circumstances, disconnect Syria from Iran? Can we stop Syria's support for Hamas? Before we respond and formulate our policy we should weigh these things with caution," he said.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres also referred to Israel's friendship with the United States, "Which protects us from all threats," and wondered whether Israel would be right to operate against the American stance, "In order for the Syrian president to escape the trouble he's in."

Haaretz: writes, "Aides to Netanyahu emphasized yesterday that Syria needs a peace agreement with Israel no less, and possibly more, than Israel needs a peace agreement with Syria. They stressed that Netanyahu has not changed his position that Israel must remain in the Golan Heights no matter what."  

Can Syria Help?

Should Bush talk to Syria? Interview with Joshua Landis Dec. 16, 2006
Aljazeera.net – Qatar, Adla Massoud in New York

Joshua Landis believes the Bush administration will simply not budge on the issue. Many in Washington feel that we're not going to go back – as the Hamilton-Baker report recommended – to dealing with dictators. Condoleezza Rice's position in dealing with Syria is that for 60 years we made a mistake in believing that supporting the status quo and dealing with dictators creates stability. She has said this is a "false stability" and we're not going to do it again. And I think there are a number of vital elements of this administration that believe that it's an important principle to cling to….

The Syria Gambit
Does the regime of Bashar al-Assad hold the key to America's problems in the Middle East? Some in Washington like to think so, but they are probably wrong.

By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek International (Selected quotes)

"Syria is on a roll," concedes Jonathan Paris, a fellow at Washington's Hudson Institute and a frequent critic of Damascus. "As in the '90s, Syria is seen as the indispensable player."

There's even hope that Damascus can be seduced away from Iran, countering its hegemonic ambitions in the greater Middle East. "Syria is a key partner," says Syrian political scientist Marwan Kabalan, "in all these regional issues."

the government-controlled daily Al Baath warned last week that if the Bush administration fails to engage Syria, "it will continue to wallow and sink in the quagmire and the situation in the region and the world will continue to be subjected to upheavals and instability."

Jonathan Paris points out, Syria thrives on the level of unrest that exists right now. "If you were Bashar, the one thing you would be afraid of is regional stability," says Paris, "because then Syria's 19 million people would ask why they are ruled by this clique of 15 or so who run the country like it is their own bank."

"America has two different options," says Syrian author and political analyst Sami Moubayed. "Either they deal with Syria, while excluding Iran, or vice versa. Dealing with both is impossible and dealing with neither is also impossible."

The only hope of marshaling the same kind of pressure on Syria is to nail the Assad regime in a United Nations-backed tribunal investigating the Valentine's Day massacre of ex-prime minister Rafik Hariri and bystanders in Beirut last year, and the other high-profile killings since. That's what the five Lebanese ministers in the Grand Serail are holding out for. And that is precisely why they've been put under siege by Hizbullah and other Syrian allies trying to destroy altogether the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. "Political assassination is very, very common in Lebanon," says Ahmad Fatfat, one of the ministers in the Serail. "We need the tribunal to stop this. If we cannot succeed in this project, it is impossible to preserve our democracy."

Indeed, if they cannot succeed, it may be impossible to preserve the shreds of the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East. But the Assad regime, so good at spoiling, so good at surviving, is likely to go on.

David Ignatius in the Washington Post: Is this Syrian gambit for real? Is Moallem serious in his offer to talk with America about a comprehensive package of peace with Israel, stability for Iraq and compromise in Lebanon? The answer is that there’s really only one way to find out, which is to explore further the ideas the Syrian foreign minister has put on the table. 

President Bashar Assad will visit Moscow on Monday to discuss the Lebanon, Iraq and Palestinian crises as Russia seeks to restore its role as a key actor in the Middle East.

Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin will examine "means to resolve the crises." The three-day mission comes hot on the heels of a Moscow visit by Prime Minister Fouad Saniora.

Saniora met Putin on Friday in a bid to have Moscow pressure Syria over the political unrest, seen by his government as a Damascus-backed coup bid. The visit came amid EU warnings for Iran and Syria not to meddle in Lebanon.

According to Posukhov, Moscow supports the establishment of an international tribunal but Putin will seek to reassure Assad that it "not be used as a means of pressure on Syria".

Russian press reports said that Russia was seeking to restore its role as a key actor in the Middle East following the collapse of the former Soviet Union.

"Syria is a key country in the region … It is not possible to resolve the situation in Iraq without contacts with Damascus," wrote Fedor Lukianov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Politics.

"Russia wants to reserve the role of privileged interlocutor of Bashar Assad," he wrote.

On the economic front, the Russian diplomat in Damascus said that Syria and Russia aim to double their two-trade from the current level of some 300 million dollars a year. Moscow remains Syria's main arms supplier.

Rice Says U.S. Will Beef Up the Lebanese Army

If You Love Lebanon, Set It Free
by Robert Grenier, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency's counterintelligence center.
December 17, 2006 NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor

…. A far more genuine American commitment to Lebanon would focus on helping the parties to come up with a reasonable formula to redress the under-representation of Shiites in the power structure while getting greater government control over Hezbollah's war-making capacity.

Make no mistake: Hezbollah is no friend to America. As a former United States intelligence officer, I know there are a few accounts yet to be settled with that organization. But Washington will never achieve its objectives in the Middle East — including its obligation to ensure Israel's long-term security — unless it puts emotions aside and deals realistically with facts on the ground. Like it or not, Hezbollah is one of those facts. A less-than-pliable but strong government in Lebanon would be far preferable to no real government at all, which is what we have now.

"Who's running Lebanon? ": ROBERT FISK  "THE INDEPENDENT"     15 December 2006 

As the nation rushes headlong towards civil war, Robert Fisk, who has lived in Beirut for 30 years, picks through the city's reckage to identify the agitators, military leaders and politicians who now wield the real power…..

Ex-general Michel Aoun is the quaint, frightening and messianic Maronite leader whose supporters provide the high number of Christians opposed to Siniora… He found no problem in trying to run Lebanon without Muslim ministers in 1990 – but is outraged at Siniora for trying to remain Prime Minister without Shiite cabinet members today. In fact, Hizbollah is far more intelligent than to send "Napoleon" back to the Baabda palace. Aoun will be swiftly dispatched …

What we are watching across the whole region is the steady but increasing collapse of American imperial power. It will not be a joyous event. It may prove to be terrifying. It will definitely be bloody. And Lebanon may now be the mirror that proves it all true.

This U-Tube video clip from Future TV (Thanks G for correction), the Hariri owned station of Beirut, showing the channel’s coverage of the opposition demonstration last week is a demonstration of how polarized the two sides have become. The point of the clip is to demonstrate how "un-Lebanese" the demonstrators are. It paints them as Syrian and Iranian inspired and promotes a conspiratorial view of the opposition. At the end of the clip there are interviews with Syrian workers who are joining the demonstration to support Nasrallah. The commentary argues that this is a sign of Syria's manipulations. But the interviewed Syrians are very forthright. They say they have come to show support for Nasrallah because without him they would be kicked out of the country, which may well be true. A bit like Mexican workers in the US demonstrating against congressional efforts to stop them from getting into the country.   

One of the more catchy slogans being chanted by the demonstrators was:

Oh Jumblat, Oh you brute (`Akrout = Pimp)
The Shiites are descending on Beirut!

"The Story of My Arrest and Accusation" – by Michel Kilo
This article originally appeared in Arabic on "Levant News"
Summary and Translation by Joe Pace
for "Syria Comment"
Dec. 16, 2006

The article begins with Michel Kilo, Syria's most articulate opposition member, accusing the authorities of “misleading public opinion with the delusion that there is a terrifying conspiracy, with hidden threads, and that I am plotting it and that I am its center.” Kilo was arrested in May 2006 after signing the "Beirut-Damascus Declaration" and having led the Syrian opposition's attempts for unify its ranks.

His interrogators grilled him about the Beirut-Damascus Declaration. He says that they were polite and courteous at the branch and said that “my presence in the [security branch] did not detract from my value as a political, national thinker and as an intellectual known for integrity.”  True to his nationalist credentials, he says that his intentions were to better relations between Syria and Lebanon to prevent Israel and America from exploiting the rift. “I told the interrogators in the security [branch] that an essential element of the declaration which cannot be overlooked focuses on the praising of Syrian-Lebanese cooperation which led to the end of the Israeli occupation of the south, and the signatories demand that neither country become a pathway or headquarters against the other, and their insistence on unified efforts to liberate the Golan and all remaining occupied Lebanese land, and solidify the Syrian-Lebanese relationship…which would ensure their unity and make them immune from foreign penetration, destruction, or weakening.”   

Kilo recounts some of the back-and-forth in the interrogation.  They said that the Zionists and America supported the position outlined in Declaration since the March 14 contingent supported it.  Kilo responds: Washington and Tel Aviv want to drive a rift between Syria and Lebanon whereas the Declaration calls for the opposite.  They accused Kilo of siding with outside powers, noting the similarities between Resolution 1680 and the Declaration.  Kilo replies that any similarities are coincidental and that his purpose is anathema to the West’s since the West fears the very unity for which Kilo calls. 

He mentions that Professor Marwan al-Luji, the public prosecutor in Damascus forced four of the signers to sign a statement saying: “Michel Kilo agreed with Khaddam regarding the declaration in exchange for his immediate release.” On June 11, 2006, an article appeared in Ath-Thawra claiming that the investigation proved that he had met with Marwan Hamaada in Cyprus and took money to sign the Declaration. Kilo sent a letter to the newspaper contesting the story, but the newspaper refused to publish it. He tried to raise a suit, but the public prosecutor refused.  

The court ordered Michel’s release but the public prosecutor fabricated another case to keep him in prison and has prevented his defense team from contesting it. Despite being publicly accused of opening up channels of communications with Khaddam, the prosecutor has yet to issue that charge, or any other justifying his continued detention. Writes Kilo: “I told the judge of the second criminal court that I was being detained on one charge and being tried for another, an undeclared charge.  I demanded that they charge me with contacting Khaddam or whomever…” in order to contest it.  He reaffirms that the Declaration was for and by intellectuals and that it is neither allied with nor beholden to any party or political trend.  “It is not a declaration of incitement, but one of reconciliation whose sole purpose is to secure the Syrian-Lebanon relationship on proper grounds and repair a basis for Arab relations anew.” 

He points out the irony that they would accuse him of cooperating with Khaddam when he had written articles lambasting him when he was still Vice President and was in turn threatened with imprisonment. He recalls that he spoke out against Khaddam’s group at a Temporary Committee for the Damascus Declaration meeting and called him a “threat to the opposition because he moves the center of work and decision making outside of Syria.”   

He says that the Beirut-Damascus Declaration is not the reason for his arrest.  He says that the authorities are aware that he did not contact any hostile elements, that they have the recordings of the Committee meetings sessions evidencing his mistrust of Khaddam, and that he has never called for the initiation of hostilities against Syria.  The reason is that “there are those who want to take revenge on me because I am a symbol of the opposition, rational and socially accepted, and because I focused my efforts on succeeding in building a vision based on shared ground.”

For background on Kilo, read "Syria detains writer in dissident crackdown," by Ferry Biedermann of FT, May 15 2006
or
SyriaComment.com: Michel Kilo the Patriot

The indomitable and charming Alix Van Buren interviewed President Bashar yesterday for La Repubblica in Italy. She sent me this English translation which includes 40 lines cut from the printed Italian version. Alix was also the first Western reporter to interview Asad following the Hariri murder, translated here on Syria Comment. The following are remarks Alix included in a note:

Hi Josh,

I did it again. Here is a rough translation of my interview with President Bashar, published today in La Repubblica. It is the first one he gave after the release of the Baker report.

Damascus misses you! One very notable development that sums up Bashar's growing strength: he has earned the title of "Presidente Assad". People have stopped referring to him as Docteur or Bashar. When they now say President Assad it is very clear that it is him, not his Father.

In person, he looked great – confident, relaxed, physically well fit.

New banks and shops opening up everywhere, with yet other signs of "Opening soon". 

David Ignatius published an interview with Foreign Minister Walid Moallem in the Washington Post as well today. Interestingly enough, they repeat some of the same lines, which confirms Moallem's insistence that he is speaking for the President when Ignatius asked him if his views represented those of the President. President Bashar's interview is more colorful and detailed. Many thanks to Alix. Her interview follows:

President Bashar al-Assad announces his choice: “I want to be a man of peace”.
Interview with President Bashar al-Asad
by Alix Van Buren of La Repubblica, Italy
Italian version

He extends to Israel an olive branch: “We could live side by side in harmony and peace”. And then he challenges Olmert: “Move towards peace. Talk to Syria, and as many Israelis say, “even if you suspect it is a bluff, you have nothing to lose”. Adding a caution: “But when a government is weak, like the one in Israel, one can expect everything, even war.  You need a strong government to make peace: peace is much more difficult than war”.

He advises Europe: “The EU should have its own vision, rooted in its history and civilization, acting as a bridge between the Arab world and the United States”.

He expresses trust in Prodi’s Italy: “He knows our region”.

The Syrian president al-Assad looks in good shape. Two years of diplomatic and economic isolation don’t seem to have tarnished his shine. The Baker plan, with its request that the White House revise its politics in the Middle East, has brought him back to the center of the international stage.

Tall and slender in a blue flannel suit, sitting in a velvet armchair in his presidential studio, he is busy, so it seems, knotting together the threads of diplomacy with the serene look of one who has recently savoured vindication. In the Damascene morning, the message is extremely clear: without Syria there is no war, but without Syria there is no peace,  Kissinger’s old adage has been polished anew. But beyond the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain framed by the window, and down from the Israeli coast, he suspects hidden surprises, possible incursions.

Mister President, two years ago you said America one day would come knocking on Syria’s door. Was this a prophecy or a threat?

"Listen, before the war in Iraq I told them: you are going to sink in the Iraqi swamp and you will need someone to extract you. Later, everything we said happened. But it was neither a prophecy nor a threat. Rather, this is what we have learned from our experience in the region. We live in this region, we know the course of the events, and it was proven that depending on military power alone will lead you nowhere. They need a vision. And many recommendations in the Baker report are in harmony with our vision”.

Some examples?

“Here is one: they need somebody to help them to formulate a vision. Because if you ask them what is your vision towards Iraq, you realize they have no vision. Second, the report talks about the need for a comprehensive peace, linking the different issues in the region to the problem of occupation, in Palestine and the Golan Heights, as we always said before the war and now. Third, it recognizes the central role of Syria”.

Is Syria willing to cooperate? Washington is asking Syria to play a constructive role.

“Of course we are willing. Because we have an interest in solving the regional issues – Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Lebanon – because we, the neighbouring countries, will be affected more than the others. But to cooperate it is not enought to have the will, nor are we the only players. To achieve a result you need all the regional and the international players around the table: the countries bordering Iraq and Israel, the United Nations, Europe and also China and Japan. And you need to get some agreement about the vision of the future from all these parties”.

Can Syria’s interests coincide, at least temporarily, with those of the United States?

“Yes, if America is willing and honest: when they say we need a unified Iraq, when they say they need to stop the violence, we have common interests. When they mention the word “peace”, if they are serious, we can work together on all these issues. But I doubt that Washington’s perspective coincides with our own”.

Why, Mister President?

“Because the problem with this Administration is that they mix dialogue with instructions. Judging by Bush’s declarations a few days ago, they do not acknowledge reality, they do not want to admit they were wrong.

So is it a matter of time? Are they going to make a gradual U-turn?

We don’t know. Still they have not learned that Syria does not take instructions, it cannot be bossed around by others. States always work for their interests. We do not work for others’ interests. And these interests for Syria are recognizing our occupied land and the whole situation in the region. Will America recognize them? This is the main question”.

Bush said “Syria knows what it must do”: according to him, you must renounce your alliance with Iran, stop supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi terrorism.

“Regarding the infiltration of terrorists in Iraq, they do not believe thier own accusations when they make them. They know that it is not true. If you ask them in private meetings, they say that Syria did a good job of stopping the inflitration of foreign fighters. Why support would we support them? They go and kill Iraqis. But if you want to talk about terrorism, I took the initiative after September 11 to tell the Americans we have the same enemy and we are ready to cooperate”.

Did you do so?

“We tried, for four years. We had more than one meeting at among intelligence leaders, actually they have lots of information, but they do not have the knowledge, how to analyze information. So we stopped cooperation with them in 2005: the result was counterproductive, because we risk losing the battle against terror”.

But going back to Hamas and Hezbollah. Do you consider you were on the winning side in supporting them?

“We do not side with any organization. One of our principles is that if this organization represent the majority of people then we have to deal with it. The landslide victory of Hamas at the elections proved that we were right, because we stood by the majority of the Palestine people. The same applies to Hezbollah. But there is a second aspect: we share the same problems. We all have occupied lands, in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Syria. And we have the same occupier or, if we want to be honest, the same enemy”.

You mean Israel? Is it the eternal enemy?

“No, when there is peace. You can live in peace and harmony side by side, but first of all you must achieve peace”.

What are the main obstacles?

“There are no obstacles in Syria. We have the full support of the Syrian people to achieve peace because we are going to get back our land. The real question is, Is Israel ready to accept peace?”.

Prime minister Olmert said the time is not yet ripe to open a dialogue with Syria, and that the Bush Administration is against it too. How do you respond?

“This means they do not want peace. But the most important thing, as you said, is that Washington doesn’t want that. This means this is a weak government, it allows Washington to take the decision instead of the Israeli government.  But let me tell you this: you need a strong government to achieve peace. Weak governments can make war but cannot achieve peace. Peace is much more difficult than war”.

Did you hear the speech by the Israeli writer David Grossman? He invited Olmert to accept your offers of peace.

“I do not know Grossman, but he is right. Besides, most of what we read from Israeli writers leads in the same direction in blaming Olmert. They ask him, “Why don’t you listen? Why don’t you deal with the Syrians even if they are lying? You won’t lose anything”. So why doesn’t he try? No one can say “I don’t want to move towards peace. This is something new”.

The Israeli military intelligence said Syria is massing earth-to-earth long range missiles along its borders, has learned lessons from the war in Lebanon and is preparing for a military campaign. Mister President, is the intelligence correct?

“You know we are still in a state of war with Israel because the still occupy our land. Secondly, we have to anticipate that Israel could launch a war against Syria at any time. They say in their statements that they may think of war against Hezbollah and Syria next summer. Third, they attempted to violate our airspace several times in the past five years. They even attacked the Syrian army. So it is not a fantasy to say that war is a possibility in our region. And it is normal to prepare yourself for such a war, and one of the ways to prepare yourself is to learn lessons from other wars, especially the neighbouring wars. But that doesn’t mean that “massing missiles” is a correct description”.

And what about Syria rearming Hezbollah, as Israel maintains?

“Listen, they have satelllites, they have all the Unifil soldiers, all their intelligence in Lebanon, of the army, of the government, while we have none in Lebanon.  With all these people and means, why do they not stop the rearmement, if it is true? When you talk about a missile, it is five or six meters long. It is not a drug that fits in your pocket! So what they say is not logical”.

Does Syria support the UN resolution 1710 on disarming Hezbollah?

“We have some reservations on it but we support it because we want to stop the war and we want stability in Lebanon because the Lebanese in the end are paying the price and we are going to pay the price with them. That is why we support it. But we said it is a temporary solution. Like a cease-fire, if you do not follow it up with political action, like working for peace, it can not last long. We’ve already seen it happen in 1996. After ten years and one month you have this war”.

Regarding your ties with Hezbollah, at the G8 a microphone left on recorded an exchange between Bush and Blair. Bush said “…all that is needed is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to quit all that s**t, and everything is over”. Can you really stop Hezbollah with a wink of your eye, if we wish you to do so?

“No, this is an exaggeration. They want to depict Hezbollah as a Syrian or Iranian puppet. Hezbollah represents a large part of the Lebanese. They have their own interests and their own vision which we share with them. We have a dialogue with them and, of course, with many Lebanese parties. They trust Syria and because of that we can have influence. But it does not mean that if we go against their interests they will listen to Syria”.

Yet Bush and Siniora accused you of interfering in Lebanon, of attempting a “coup d’etat” against the government in Beirut through your support of Sayyed Nasrallah. How do you respond?

“The more I hear the statements by the current American Administration, the more I am convinced that when they see something, they see it in the opposite way. They can not understand the situation in Iraq, how can they understand Lebanon and Syria? We have an interest in the stability of Lebanon, so we cannot be with one party against the other. Sharing the vision of Hezbollah does not mean supporting it against the others. We support every matter of consensus about the Lebanese. It will take time before this consensus emerges. Then we will support it. We want to be in the middle, always”.

So it is not true that you want to regain influence in Lebanon?

“We have influence in Lebanon, we never lost it. But that does not mean interferance. Our influence does not come from a relation with a super power. We get it from our history and our geography. It is a geopolitcal position. You see, Lebanon and Syria used to be one region, and this applies also to the surrounding region, including Iraq. We have the same families, same language, same tradition. As for the geographical ties, Lebanon is surrounded by Syria, the depth of Lebanon is Syria. But it is a two-way relationship: Lebanon also has influence in Syria because of its position and its social ties”.

Why are you so much against the Hariri international tribunal?

“We are not against it. We have an interest to cooperate with the investigation Commission to uncover the truth of the crime. But this is different from the international tribunal. First of all, they did not consult us. The tribunal is a treaty between the United Nations and the Lebanese government. We are a State, we have our Constitution and laws. And without a treaty, we cannot allow any tribunal to work in the place of our government. It is like giving up your sovereignty”. 

Mister President, you talk about peace, about consensus. Yet one of your closest allies, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, says he wants to wipe Israel off the world map. How does that fit with your quest for peace?

“Iranians are not against the peace process. We have had long-term realations with them for three decades now. They never tried to stop us from starting the peace talks, not in the past and not now. As to his words, you may read what they said in Haaretz a few days ago: “No Palestinians. No Palestine. No Problems”. They have to listen to the echo of their words. They have to expect that somebody in the region, and I am not talking about President Ahmadinejad, may say “No Israelis. No Israel. No Problems”. They started this logic”.

But organizing a Conference on the Holocaust goes over the lilits, wouldn’t you say?

“Europe has a complex with the Holocaust. We don’t, it was not us who perpetrated it. Europe and America talk about freedom of speech. There was this novel about Christ having a child, the “Da Vinci Code”; how do you discuss this but not the Holocaust? It is not the history of God, it is the history of human beings”.

So what is at the core of your alliance with Teheran?

“Teheran supported Syria. That’s enough. The whole world wanted to isolate Syria and they stood beside us. They told me to separate from Iran and I asked them why. They supported us in every aspect. It is as simple as that. Besides, let me add. Iran is an important country, therefore Europe and America have to talk with it, and we have to have good relations with Iran for the stability of the region, including that of Iraq”.

Can Syria help stabilize Iraq?

“Again, we are not the only player. We can support a national Iraqi conference between the different factions with regional support. This is one way. We have good relations with most of the Iraqi parties. We also resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq which were severed after Saddam came to power.

However when talking about Iraq, one must not lose sight of the larger picture. As I said, all the different issues in the region are linked to the problem of occupation. The Baker report is very clear on this point: it starts with Iraq but it ends up talking about peace, about the need to address occupation, the peace process, and “land for peace”. If you do not talk also about Palestine and the Golan Heights, you cannot solve any other problem”.

Is the Madrid Conference on your mind?

“This is the only appropriate base for the peace talks. The principle of Madrid was clear: “Land for peace”. Much was achieved during the Rabin government, and anyone who wants to start from point Zero does not want to achieve peace because it means they don’t agree on things already agreed on. As to the centrality of the Palestinian issue in the Arab world, those who do not recognize it are not realistic: they will achieve nothing”.

Did you get positive reactions form the European envoys that came to Damascus?

“When we talk about Europe, it should be a bridge with the United States. It should use its history with the region, its heritage as a continent with its history and civilization. It should not limit itself, as sometimes happens, to come to our region with American ideas, to convince us. But the role of Europe is limited by the role of the U.S. And also by its own internal divisions, before the war in Iraq and now. We cannot talk about Europe as such, but rather about some players, such as the role by Italy and Spain”.

Do you expect positive results from the dialogue with Italy?

“Our relation with Italy has improved a lot with Mister Prodi. I know him personally since he was the President of the EC. He knows our region and understands the events very well. Sometimes Italy and Syria see things from different angles and this is normal. The other side is that he has credibility and this is very important for cooperation. But we are still at the beginning of the dialogue. It must mature, because we live in international circumstances where Italy and Syria alone are not enough, we have to move with the rest of the players, with a common vision”.

You are speaking again like a central actor of hte internationa scene. Do you feel vindicated now?

“You must remember than a little more than one year ago America said we were irrelevant, weak, that we had no role. The latest developments have vindicated us. Actually, whoever talks about isolating Syria is isolating themselves from the region. If you look at many countries who participated in the attempts of isolating Syria, now they cannot play any constructive role”.

Who are you thinking about?

“Let’s say France for example. If you talk about the peace initiative by France, Italy and Spain, we cooperate with Rome and Madrid. But not with Paris: because of their policies, because they no longer have the crredibility to play such a role”.

Has the isolation exacted a price from Syria?

“Quite to the contrary, we are stronger than before. Politically and economically. In 2005 we had the largest investments of the past fourty years. There was more tourism, we reached a growth rate of 4.5 per cent compared to a negative growth rate in the year 2000. We want more, but given the difficult circumstances these growth figures were surprising results. We depended on ourselves, on our own pillars.

So was the American isolation ineffective?

The people in the region as whole are against US policies. And when it is so, you can not impiment them. Our policy is based on the will of the people. That is why we are very strong. We became even stronger than before”.

Some would object that during this time there was in Syria a tightening of liberties. That the promises of reform lagged behind. That civil right activists and political dissidents were imprisoned for their opinion, the most quoted case is that of Michel Kilo. How do you reply to such criticism?

“Firstly we don’t allow anyone to interfere in our domestic issues. We know what to do, whether we do it right or wrong. This is our contry. Second, Michel Kilo did not go to prison because he had a different opinion. He was tried in a normal court. He has a relation with a party in Lebanon which publicly invited the United States to attack Syria and occupy Damascus. This party is against Syria according to the law”.

Regarding the support of the people, do you feel stronger in Syria?

“You have to ask the Syrians. One cannot be a dictator, as they say, and have good relations with the people and have stability and growth in the country at the same time. It is impossible. If you are a dictator, there will be chaos and many people will leave the country”.

Mister President, do you still want to open up the Syrian society to democracy?

“Political and economic reforms procede in tandem. But there is an issue of priorities. Which means one you have to focus on more. What is urgent in Syria? Poverty. This is the most important challenge. We don’t say we’re going to focus on the political side and not the economic but rather we look for what the people want.

But in the end that is why I want to be a man of peace. When there is peace you will have prosperity in the broader sense. Economy, society, culture, all are related it. So you can be a man of war or a man of peace. I have made my choice. Peace is central if you want to leave a finger print in the history of your country

–END–

For those interested in comparing Ignatius' interview with Moallem, I copy it for the record.

Interview With Syrian Foreign Minister,"  by David Ignatius in Washington Post.

Here's the transcript of the interview with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem conducted on December 14, 2006 in Damascus, Syria.

Q: Ignatius: Perhaps you could begin by giving an overall view of the Baker-Hamilton Report

A: Moallem: During my work in Washington (as Syrian ambassador in the early 1990s) I knew Baker and I knew Hamilton. I know their objectivity. I know that both of them and others on the (Iraq Study Group) committee who I used to know have vision.

The first question Baker asked me when we met in New York (in September 2006) was: Walid, how can we return to the Syrian-American situation of the early 1990s, when we succeeded to build mutual trust? I told him: This is our wish also in Syria.

But how can we make it? We need to ask ourselves one question: Has the prior American policy against Syria–isolation–worked or failed? I think from what we are seeing in the region today, it failed. What will be another option? The challenge is to adopt policies of engagement. The method is dialogue.

Why is this challenging? Through dialogue, no side can stay in his position. Constructive dialogue means both sides have to meet. We can call it a 'common ground.' Through an engagement policy, you agree on certain principles and goals.

What are Syrian goals in the region? There are three: Peace, stability and prosperity. These are the Syrian goals. Are these three goals contradicting American national interests in the region? I don't think so.

–If we tackle first the issue of peace: The American administration knows that during our previous direct talks with the Israelis (during the early 1990s) we achieved 90 percent of the agreement. We lacked the political will from Israel to achieve the noble cause of peace between Syria and Israel. Is it contradicting American interests to continue the path of Madrid (the 1991 Madrid peace conference, which laid the ground for subsequent Israeli-Syrian peace talks) on the same basis?

I wonder why the administration is preventing Israel to go on this path of peace, to secure its northern border. I wonder why this administration failed to achieve the question the late Prime Minister Rabin asked: What is the meaning of peace between Syria and Israel? When I say this, I mean a comprehensive peace–including Syria, the Palestinians and Lebanon. But as foreign minister of Syria, I will speak on behalf only of Syria.

Q: You referred to Bush administration efforts to prevent Israel from negotiation with Syria. What are you referring to?

A: I have been told this in New York by Americans who are attached to peace. Why is this administration preventing Israel?

Q: When did this happen?

A: Immediately after the war between Israel and Lebanon. (August 2006). In Israel, there is a weak government. This means that this government needs encouragement from Washington to move on the way to peace. If this administration put on its priorities peace in the Middle East, why didn't they (encourage the Israelis). Is this an administration for war only?

In December 1990, when President Hafez al-Assad met President Bush the father in Geneva, Assad told Bush: Mr. President, no one can challenge your military strength. But we understand when you hold in one hand the gun, you need to hold in the other the olive branch. This is how superpowers can survive. President Bush the father was honest to his promise. After the ceasefire (in the 1991 Gulf War) in March, Secretary Baker in April moved to call for a Mideast peace conference. This is how we understand the responsibilities of a superpower.

–Second, I turn to regional stability. Is it contradicting American interests? I don't think so. How do we achieve this when the administration is at a crossroads. Either we go for stability or the region will fall, and religious civil wars and the extremists behind them will take over. Will this serve U.S. interests?

It is not useful for anyone to tackle the deep concerns in the region by giving us tablets of aspirin. You need to tackle the biggest issues. One of them is a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It will lead to a solution in Lebanon, immediately. It will help Iraqi stability and security.

Syria always asked America to change its behavior. The Syrians are asking the Americans: When you are showing keenness on Lebanese stability and Iraqi stability, why do you try to de-stabilize Syria? If you want us to have constructive dialogue, you need to reassure us about your good intentions concerning our stability.

–Third, prosperity. If you achieve peace and stability, you can focus on prosperity. Prosperity in the region has an effect on illegal immigration, terrorism, poverty. All these objectives serve our interests and the Americans'. So the question here is: Why do you sanction Syria?

We are ready for constructive dialogue to achieve these three objectives, based on our knowledge that you need to take history and geography into account. We are in the middle of three crises–Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians–and you are far away.

Q: Let me ask you to discuss the specifics of the Baker-Hamilton report. Do you support the report?

A: There are many positive elements in this report. But it is not a Bible or Koran. This is the first time there is a report on the desk–another plan for the administration. We are not the decision-makers. It is up to the president to decide.

We say: We are not against the U.S. To the contrary, we want to be part of a regional dialogue that in our opinion serves American interests in the region.

Q: Let's go through the specific recommendations in the report that concern Syria. The first is recommendation 4, which calls for an Iraq Support Group composed of Iraq's neighbors and the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council. Would Syria join in such an Iraq Support Group?

A: I will explain: I went to Iraq (in November 2006). I spent three days there. When others visited they have spent three hours. I met with all the Iraqi leaders. I discussed issues with them on the basis of agreed principles. One, the unity of Iraq. Two, the independence of Iraq. Three, an agreed timetable of withdrawal between the U.S. and Iraqi leadership.

When I refer to a timetable, it is not to offend the U.S. To the contrary. It is a timetable for withdrawal and building Iraqi security. They will go in parallel. It is not a timetable of immediate withdrawal.

Q: Do you have in mind a time frame? What about the Baker-Hamilton suggestion of early 2008?

A: It is not up to me to answer. It depends on Iraqi ability to take over security. Immediate withdrawal? This is an immoral step. Iraq must be prepared to take over. It is not a duty (for the US military in Iraq) of fighting. It is a duty of training.

Iraq is similar to Lebanon. You cannot rule Iraq by majority. You rule Iraq by consensus. All Iraqi groups have to participate in the political process. The first steps must start with the Iraqis themselves. They need to end existing divisions within themselves. They need to agree on the constitution, unity, the distribution of wealth, dismantling of militias. When they reach agreement on these, they need to start preparation of a national reconciliation conference. Even their legislation of uprooting the Baath (de-Baathification), they realize they need a change, to uprooting the Saddamists.

(Moallem goes off record to describe his conversations with the leaders of each of the main groups in Iraq. He agreed to allow me to summarize the basic outlines of his advice: To the Kurds, don't secede; to the Shia, recognize that you can't rule Iraq alone and work with the Sunnis; to the Sunnis, recognize that old system of Sunni rule is gone and work with the Shia.)

Q: But what about the Baker-Hamilton idea of a regional Iraq Support Group? Should that come later?

A: The Iraqi consensus (after it is reached) has to be supported by the neighboring countries. That is the third step, after Iraqi agreement on issues and the national reconciliation conference. The third step is a meeting between Iraqis, their neighbors and the five members of the UN Security Council.

Q: Let me return to the specific recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Report. Recommendation 12 says the U.S. and the Support Group should encourage Syria to do three things: control its border with Iraq to the maximum extent possible, including joint Syrian-Iraqi patrols; open a Syrian hotline to Iraq; increase Syrian political and economic cooperation with Iraq.

A: Leave that language aside. These are Syrian ideas that have been offered to the Iraqis. Tomorrow we will have the Iraqi interior minister in Syria, for talks based on these ideas. We will have 22 generals coming, from the Defense ministry, the Interior ministry. We are not doing this to please the US. We are doing what is in the Syrian and Iraqi interest. We promise to do things with Iraq, and we started doing them Dec. 11, when we raised flags at our two embassies. The next step is security arrangements, economic arrangements.

Q: So you are already doing the things mentioned in recommendation 12.

A: Yes.

Q: The next is recommendation 13, which calls for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts. I assume from what you said before you favor that. And then recommendation 14, which calls for an unconditional meeting, like the 1991 Madrid conference.

A: It is a good idea. I would like to see this administration really honestly have interest to accomplish this goal. It has a duty to encourage Israel to walk on this path.

Q: Finally, Lebanon, which is discussed in recommendation 15. It has a series of specific items. First, it says that Syria should pledge full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006 (which called on Syria to halt deliveries of arms to Hezbollah.)

A: We are adhering to it. We have increased our border patrols on the Lebanese border.

I deny all rumors that Syria is sending arms to Lebanese parties. You have satellite and air surveillance over these borders. Nobody has presented us a document telling us that there is this transfer of arms. President Assad committed to (UN Secretary General) Annan that Syria will work with the UN to implement 1701.

Q: The Baker-Hamilton Report next calls on Syria to cooperate with the UN investigation of the Hariri assassination and other killings. I know that Brammertz said this week in his latest report that Syria is cooperating, but will you continue to cooperate?

A: We will continue our cooperation with the Brammertz investigation, as long as this investigation is proven it is professional. Because discovering the reality of this crime is serving the Syrian interest.

Q: Next, recommendation 15 calls for cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and use of Syrian territory to transport weapons.

A: There is no such cooperation (with Hezbollah). We have moral support, not operational support, because we want to see Lebanon stable. We want to help UNIFIL (the UN force in southern Lebanon) in achieving its mandate, and we believe the Lebanese are capable of solving issues.

Q: Next, recommendation 15 calls for Syria to use its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of Israeli army prisoners.

A: Who has influence on Israel to release Lebanese, Palestinians and 20 Syrians who are being held prisoner? Why don't we combine the two influences to achieve a deal on exchanging prisoners. We are ready.

Q: Next, the report calls on Syria to stop its efforts to undermine the Lebanese government.

A: We are for the stability, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.

Q: But I believe the report is referring to the current Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora.

A: Fouad Siniora is not Lebanon. Fouad Siniora was invited to visit Syria three times. He was reluctant. We support Lebanese stability. We support what Lebanese agreed upon to achieve their stability, within Taif (the 1990 Taif agreement) and the constitution.

Q: Next, the report calls for Syria to cease arms shipments to Hamas.

A: This is nonsense. We are far from Gaza.

Q: Next, the report calls for a Syrian commitment to help obtain an acknowledgement by Hamas of Israel's right to exist.

A: I will disclose something to you for the first time. We are exerting efforts with the foreign minister of Qatar with Hamas and Fatah together. We kept the same distance between them, to reach agreement to compose a national unity government. We convinced Hamas to agree on a ceasefire in Gaza. We hope this will be applicable to the West Bank. We convinced Hamas to agree on a Palestinian state in the 1967 occupied territories. (An implicit recognition of Israel). What else do you want from us?

Q: Finally, recommendation 15 calls on Syria to make greater efforts to seal its border with Lebanon.

A: Can the US seal its border with Mexico? Unless you want us to build a wall to seal the border with Lebanon. Are the Lebanese seeking this? Will it serve their interests?

Q: Finally, Recommendation 16 says that in return for Syrian help in all these matters, Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria. Is that a precondition, for Syria–that it would get the Golan back in any negotiations?

A: There is no precondition. A constructive dialogue has to start without preconditions. Dialogue has a literature (of proper procedure). You don't put demands. You put agreed goals. Under this, you put each side's commitment to achieve the goals in a parallel way. This is how we understand constructive dialogue.

This is not a deal. This is not, 'We will do this if you give us Lebanon.' Our only goal is to get the return of Syrian occupied territories, to get Syrian regional stability.

A: I am the foreign minister of Syria. The president and the foreign minister can speak. He is the leader. I am expressing his ideas.

By David Ignatius |  November 10, 2006; 7:10 PM ET

The flood gates are opening and President Bush has lost control of his isolate-Syria policy. Congress is defying the President and heading for Damascus. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida met today with Asad in Damascus. Others are on their way, including John Kerry, D-Mass., Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Arlen Spector, R-Pa.

Bush put out a heated statement about how Syria must become democratic and release prisoners. This is his last stand on holding back the tide waters, to shame them on the human rights front, but the damage is done for Bush. Congress will begin to put its shoulder to foreign policy. Not just democrats are going, republics are headed toward Damascus as well. Arlen Spector wrote an impassioned article in the Washington Quarterly in the December issue, explaining why he would head for Damascus and how he was able to get things accomplished in past visits. Here are some articles.

Florida senator meets with the president of Syria

By Lesley Clark
Dec. 13, 2006
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON – Defying the Bush administration, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida met Wednesday in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying after the meeting that he believed that there was a "crack in the door" to continue discussions with Syria on curbing the violence in neighboring Iraq.

Midway through the Florida Democrat's conference call with reporters, however, the White House issued a statement denouncing the Syrian government's human rights record and calling on it to "immediately free all political prisoners."

"Syrians deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force," the statement from President Bush said.

The White House has expressed reluctance about diplomatic outreach to Syria because of the country's role in Lebanon, where it's suspected in several political assassinations, and its support of the militant Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, which the United States has designated as terrorist organizations.

The administration said the statement on Syria's human rights was unrelated to Nelson's visit, but White House spokesman Tony Snow said the administration didn't "think that members of Congress ought to be going there." He said the White House had opposed Syria's involvement in Lebanon and noted that "it's a real stretch to think the Syrians don't know where we stand or what we think."

Nelson, a member of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees and an incoming member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, acknowledged that the State Department wasn't happy with his decision to meet with the Syrian president to discuss whether the country could help the United States find a way out of Iraq.

Nelson said that in the aftermath of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation for a stepped-up diplomatic effort involving Syria and Iran, "it was obvious that we were going to have contacts."

"Remember what the goal was," Nelson said. "The goal is to stabilize Iraq. I felt like that that was a nonstarter for them to say that I should ignore the (Iraq Study Group) report."

Nelson rejected suggestions that he was rebuffing Bush, saying he had a "constitutional role as a member of Congress. . . . I am on a fact-finding trip throughout the Middle East."

Nelson noted that other senators – John Kerry, D-Mass., Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Arlen Spector, R-Pa. – are expected to follow him and that the State Department eventually supported his visit. Personnel from the U.S. embassies in Jordan and Damascus escorted him.

Nelson said Assad agreed that Syria and the United States had "a common interest to stabilize Iraq" and that Assad "clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate" with the U.S. or the Iraqi army to secure Iraq's border with Syria.

"He has a refugee problem," Nelson said of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've crossed into Syria, fleeing the violence in their homeland.

The two met for about an hour in the presidential palace in a meeting that Nelson described as "cordial."

Nelson said Assad made no specific request of the United States, but that they had a "sharp disagreement of opinion" over Hezbollah and Hamas. Nelson said he made it clear to Assad that the United States wouldn't ease the pressure on Syria to stop backing the groups.

The senator said he'd urged Assad to support the release of Israeli soldiers whom Hezbollah had kidnapped, but that Assad had responded by noting that Israel is holding 20 Syrians, one of whom recently died of leukemia.

Nelson also said he'd told Assad that he planned to go to Beirut on Thursday to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, whose government Syria's ally Hezbollah is trying to unseat.

The senator said he was "not interested in going to Iran" but that he did raise with Assad the specter of a "nuclear-ized" Iran.

"He ought to understand that that's not only a threat to him, Syria, but to the entire world," Nelson said.

The senator's trip includes stops in Israel, Palestinian areas, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. He said he planned to report his findings to the State Department and the Senate Armed Services, Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.

Nelson noted that he spoke earlier with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who's rejected opening peace talks with Syria.

Olmert "said that he preferred that I not go, but knowing that I was going that he knew I had the interests of Israel at heart," Nelson said.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release December 13, 2006

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

The United States supports the Syrian people's desire for democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression. Syrians deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force.

The Syrian regime should immediately free all political prisoners, including Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, Mahmoud Issa, and Kamal Labwani. I am deeply troubled by reports that some ailing political prisoners are denied health care while others are held in cells with violent criminals.

Syria should disclose the fate and whereabouts of the many missing Lebanese citizens who "disappeared" following their arrest in Lebanon during the decades of Syrian military occupation. The Syrian regime should also cease its efforts to undermine Lebanese sovereignty by denying the Lebanese people their right to participate in the democratic process free of foreign intimidation and interference.

The people of Syria hope for a prosperous future with greater opportunities for their children, and for a government that fights corruption, respects the rule of law, guarantees the rights of all Syrians, and works toward achieving peace in the region.

Diplomatic missions to Syria and for Asad elsewhere are becoming fast and furious. Here is a preliminary schedule.

German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier visited Damascus on Monday, where he met wtih with H.E. Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallim, H.E. Vice-President Farouk Al-Sharaa, H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad and H.E. Vice-Prime Minister Abdallah Al-Dardari. German foreign minister to urge Syria to recognize Lebanon's …

Dutch FM says Syria can play key role in Mideast region after visit to Damascus on Tuesday

Palestinian Prime Minister is already in Damascus for a few days: Palestinian Premier Visits Syria

Assad is going to Russia Dec 19th: Syria leader to visit Moscow December 19 over ties, Middle East. ITAR-TASS

Turkish Prime Minister is coming to Damascus this month 

Iranian President visiting Damascus

And Iraqi Prime Minister Malki might be visiting Damascus this month too.