Obama's Middle East Strategy Starts with Syria
Seymour Hersh | The New Yorker | April 2009
When
the Israeli campaign in the Gaza Strip ended in the middle of January, it
seemed at that any hope of Israel
and Syria
reaching a peace agreement in the foreseeable future had ended as well. However,
now senior government officials believe that Intelligence officers and
diplomats from the US will
soon meet at new peace talks with Syria
and Israel.
The reason: the new US
administration appears to want to rebuild the Middle East peace process through
a diplomatic approach to Syria,
which could strengthen its own strategic position in relation to Tehran. It is clear that
both countries bring specific priorities to the negotiation table. For Barack
Obama this will be the first and maybe the best chance for an effective
contribution to the Middle East peace process.
As the Bush era wound down, US allies were making contact with Syria. In the
middle of November, British Foreign Secretary Miliband travelled to Damascus to discuss the
exchange of important intelligence information with the Syrian president. In December former US
President Carter visited the Syrian capitol and identified Syria as key to peace in the Middle
East. The White House confirmed that the Obama transition team had
been informed of his visit in advance. Carter had an extensive meeting with
Obama on the eve of the Inauguration. The exact contents of the discussion are
not known, but Carter subsequently expressed the hope that the new US
President would pursue dialogue as soon as possible with the Assad government.
Informal talks with Syria
have already taken place.
Obama's Middle East strategy is still
under review in the State Department as well as in the National Security
Council. The US
administration seems to dispute the possibility that peace talks between Syria and Israel
could play a role in removing the black cloud hanging over the West and Iran.
A peace plan including an agreement on the Golan Heights would compel Iran
to finally approach the west. The danger would be too great for Tehran to continue to isolate itself; in many ways Syria is ultimately Tehran's last ally. Furthermore, in the event
of an agreement Syria
must consider its position in relation to Hezbollah and Hamas, and how the
Iranian axis may be weakened. Assad and his government could negotiate the
withdrawal of Americans from Iraq
and broker talks between the US
and Tehran.
Better relations between the West and Iran
will not necessarily result in better security for Israel,
but rather a completely new strategic option for Afghanistan.
This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community editorial team from "Syria Calling: The Obama Administration's chance to engage in a Middle East peace," published here by The New Yorker, April 2009.
Tue, Jun 2nd 2009, 04:39
henelito a. sevilla, jr, asian center university of the Philippines
If we take the argument that the Obama administration can facilitate talks with Syria and that positive results of the talk would help open up the door for negotiation with Tehran regime then I think that is partly correct but at the same time partly assumptious. Yes, Syria can be considered as the last card of Iran in the Middle East but is Iran allow the possibility of losing its last card? Of course not?
If Israel and Syria can agree on certain issues crucial to both then there is a possibility of a fruitful talks in the future and that can be utilized by the United States as a great opportunity to approach enemies in the region. Unless the United States can change the openions of the Syrian and Arab leaders that it can honestly broker peace without a duality of its policy then perhaps the possibility of winning its dream for the Middle East is feasible.
What the United States or Obama's administration will try to do is to create an environment of trust and this would demand time and change of American foreign policy both in context and content.
Should there be a change in context will never be enough unless content is also revised. Content should consider all possible alternative approaches that are more or less acceptable by both side. It again undeniable that US detachment from the region will result to regional initiatives to attend peace. The region will and continue to need the US and a balancer and broker but again the effectivity of this will depend how honest American policy would be in the region.