The news has been good to Syria. Despite being blatantly guilty of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Iraq, Iran and the Israeli-Hizballah conflict shuffled the little dictatorship-that-could out of the news where it has remained the past few months. Yet, while Syria has fallen of most people’s radar, the recent war in Lebanon could have dangerous consequences for Syria, especially in connection with the rumours of an Israeli-Syrian agreement on the Golan. The Syrian government is now faced with several threats.
Nasrallah elbowing his way in
During this author’s month in Syria in September 2005, long before the Hizballah-Israel conflict, something strange was already afoot. Seeing a dictator’s face on the back of almost every car, inside every business, on most buildings, on cultural monuments and more is entertainment for a Westerner. Like any Syrian, I quickly learned the familiar faces of the ruling Syrian family, Hafez al-Assad, Basil al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad. Yet a stranged beared figure could also be seen on stickers, posters and billboards: Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizballah.
For a dictator to share prime personality-cult space is shocking, but to share it with a regional figure more popular than yourself is plain stupid. While al-Assad may be trying to piggyback on the popularity of Hizballah and paint himself as an anti-Western figure, such tactics could easily backfire. Despite being overwhelmingly Sunni, the Syrian population has far more sympathy with Hizballah than with their disliked dictator.
The Golan
Recent news has reports of unofficial meetings between the Syrians and Israelis, and the story is that there is an impending agreement on an Israeli withdrawal of the Golan, back to its 1967 borders. Among the conditions was that Syria would end its support for Hizballah’s armed activities and ensure it operates solely as a political party. In addition Syria would “exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq” and “would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem.” This comes as al-Assad just met with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani and condemned the insurgents as “terrorists” voicing his support for Iraq’s elected government.
As a secular Arab state, Syria has a mutual interest with the West in containing Islamism. Yet, it’s leadership is torn between those very Islamists and an antagonistic West. Constantly under threat and with the war in Iraq next door, Syria is stuck between a rock and a hard place where working with Islamists is the better option. Yet, this poses and internal threat and could create an external one in the form of the United States.
The return to Syria of the Golan from arch-enemy Israel would be an unparalleled public relations coup at home. Riding that wave of content, cover would be provided to go after Islamists and slowly move towards the West. In addition, the issue of the Shebaa Farms would become and issue between Syria and Lebanon, removing Hizballah’s ostensible reason for continuing its fight against Israel.
A breath of fresh air
In short, a peace deal between Israel and Syria would provide a much needed breath of fresh air to the conflict-ridden region. It would allow Syrian’s unpopular regime to regain some legitimacy both domestically and internationally and help disconnect Syria from the region’s conflicts. If the United States and Europe take regional stability seriously, they will publicly support the initiative and privately urge both countries forward with promises of financial and political rewards.
NOTE: Anyone who wishes to see photos taken from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights should click here to view my post on it written during my trip to the Middle East.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Why am I not surprised?
- » Military Intelligence
COMMENTS / 6 COMMENTS
Chief Wiggum added these pithy words on 21 Jan 07 at 5:29 pmSyria is mostly Sunni. Al-Assad is an Alawite. Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam. The Syrians supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. It doesn’t seem surprising that al-Assad would try to link himself to Nasrallah, who is sponsored by Shi’a Iran. Would he now turn around and really get tough with Nasrallah and Hizbollah?
This proposed “deal” to return the Golan seems like a lot of vague rhetoric. It would be great if it really came to fruition. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of Syria completing its part of the bargain before the Golan is returned. But if Syria does, al-Assad could be the next Sadat- a target for assasination.
J.Kende added these pithy words on 21 Jan 07 at 5:52 pmTerrible plan. No more land for peace. The conflict with Syria will be solved if and only if the standoff with Iran is resolved effectively. If the Syrians are serious about saving themselves from the winds of destabilization blowing so strongly throughout the region they would be wise to jump at a deal of peace in exchange for nothing other than peace itself. A deal where they gain international support and massive financial investment in return for opening up their society, dismantling their police state, and ending claims of overlordship to Lebanon and the Golan is the only deal that should be on the table. They turn that down at their own risk.
What does Israel gain from giving up the Golan? Come ten years from now at the very most the threat from Hezbollah is completely nullified by the continued outpacing by the Israelis of their neighbors in technological and military development. I doubt it will be anywhere near that long before another war comes, inside sectarian Lebanon or between Israel and Syria/Iran as sparked by acts of war from Hezbollah, but if we leave Iran out of the picture and war is somehow avoided then containment for Syria and Hezbollah will work very well within a decade.
Iran is a much more urgent problem. It’s nuclear program is the only existential threat to Israel (and the Arabs as well) anyone should currently be worried about.
Now if we are talking about Gaza and the disputed territories of the West Bank, that’s a different story. It won’t do anything to solve the Iran conflict either, but allowing for the creation of an indpendent Palestinian state in Gaza and in (I would say) ~50% of the West Bank territories would at least disentangle Israelis from the longtime simmering (and now coming out into the open) Palestinian civil war. It’s a very dangerous and risky move. I do think it will strengthen the Israeli position, militarily and economically (I couldn’t care less about diplomacy with two-face tyrants), in the region.
My bet is that all of this is moot. Expect war to come again this year. As always, it will completely change everything we are trying to analyze here, for better or worse.
John Brown added these pithy words on 22 Jan 07 at 7:22 amWho are the “two-faced tyrants” and what constitutes an “existential threat”?
J.Kende added these pithy words on 22 Jan 07 at 7:28 amMost of the leaders of the nations of the Middle East are tyrants. Two-faced in the sense that any peace deal would not be likely to be a warm peace, but rather one where the words say peace but actions say otherwise. Existential threat would be anything that could wipe out the nation of Israel. For example, a nuclear exchange with Iran.
J. Kende added these pithy words on 22 Jan 07 at 6:46 pm“The fact that Israel was attacked last summer from two areas it left strengthens the sense of a dead end, and proves that the root of the conflict is not the occupation of territories,” Yaalon said.
He added that Hizbullah’s aim was not the liberation of Lebanon, but the destruction of the State of Israel, and that the same was true of the Palestinian Hamas government.
“Erase the green line and the ‘67 borders—Israeli concessions will only aid jihadists,” Yaalon declared.
Stiv added these pithy words on 24 Jan 07 at 12:49 pmHaffaz Assad wouldn’t have taken kindly to any threat to his regional power that Nasrallah is posing to his son now.
That said is it possible for allegiance to party (Baathist) over Moslem sect?
