Syria first

Someone in the mainstream media agrees with me on the Middle East Here is Aaron David Miller in the Washington Post arguing for a Syria first approach to the Middle East:

The more compelling argument is for a major push on another negotiation: between Israel and Syria. Here, there are two states at the table, rather than one state and a dysfunctional national movement. A quiet border, courtesy of Henry Kissinger's 1974 disengagement diplomacy, prevails. And there are fewer settlers on the Golan Heights and no megaton issues such as the status of Jerusalem to blow up the talks. Indeed, the issues are straightforward -- withdrawal, peace, security and water -- and the gaps are clear and ready to be bridged.

For a president looking for a way to buck up America's credibility, an Israeli-Syrian agreement offers a potential bonus. Such a deal would begin to realign the region's architecture in a way that serves broader U.S. interests. The White House would have to be patient. Syria won't walk away from a 30-year relationship with Iran; weaning the Syrians from Iran would have to occur gradually, requiring a major international effort to marshal economic and political support for Damascus. Still, an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would confront Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with tough choices and reduced options.

I've made a similar argument before. Also here.

Via Matthew Yglesias

Update: Itamar Rabinovich over at Jerusalem Post makes essentially the same arguments (hat tip FP Passport)

Smart take: Israel, Palestine and Syria

Blake Houndshell makes two good point:

Most of these ideas, regardless of whether Gates really intends to implement them, are worth exploring. I really, wonder, though, about the viability of a "big push on Israel-Palestine peace" at this point.

It hasn't gotten a lot of coverage, but the Palestinian Authority is in huge trouble right now. Hamas insists that Mahmoud Abbas's term as president expires on Jan. 9. For his part, Abbas is threatening to call presidential and parliamentary elections, the latter of which Hamas would deem illegal.

It's a huge mess, making it hard to imagine Israel engaging in serious negotiations, much less allowing a failed state to set up shop next door. As peace process veteran Aaron David Miller bluntly puts it, "The dysfunction and confusion in Palestine make a conflict-ending agreement almost impossible."

That is a huge problem right now. Whoever attempts a peace process will have to recognize that there will need to be at least 2 Palestinian representatives at the negotiating table, or that Fatah and Hamas agree to form some sort of coalition government, which is unlikely. I still think that if Kadima is reelected, there might be a way to work around it because the Arab Peace Initiative is a proposal made by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League. If Hamas wants to spoil the peace process, the Arab countries are much better placed to pressure them into negotiating than any tough talking American politician. The Arab states currently believe it is in their interests to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem because they are worried that it is fueling fundamentalism in their own country. This is an important window of opportunity for peace between Israel and Palestine, maybe in 10-15 years Arab governments will not be as worried about fundamentalism and will not actively support a peace process.

The second point:

Second, if I were Barack Obama, I'd probe the Syrians to find out what their price is for making peace with the Israelis. If it seems doable, I'd start laying the groundwork so that once the new Israeli government is in place, direct talks could quickly follow with the United States, not Turkey, as a mediator.

Claims that getting the Syrians to stop supporting Hamas will cause the Palestians to be less radical are probably overblown -- if anything, the exiled political leadership in Damascus is more pragmatic than the guys in Gaza -- but a Syria-Israel peace deal has its own logic. Syria has foolishly spurned such opportunities before, but it's worth a shot.

That is also very important. Syria has no ideological reason for not being at peace with the West and Israel. Negotiations with Syria would be one of my top priority if I was Obama (assuming Kadima is also elected in February, if Netanyahu wins, forget all hopes for peace for a while).

How to deal with Iran

Karim Sadjadpour has a 6 point plans on how to deal with Iran. Here are his 6 recommendations:

1. Build confidence on issue of common interest
2. Understand where the power lies
3. Speak softly
4. Don't let the spoilers set the tenor (ie interests groups in Iran or allied with Iran that benefit from a confrontational US-Iran relation)
5. Maintain an international approach
6. Get the timing right
   

These are all very good points. Obama should not rush to try to solve the Iran problem in a few months. He should start diplomacy slowly and build a relationship. He should recognize that doing that while acting tough might be popular domestically in the short term, his long term interest is to play nice to try to bring back Iran in the fold of the international community. Negotiating this way with Iran would make Obama susceptible to attacks by hawks and neocons who would paint him as naive, but I think it is a risk worth taking because the odds of a success are fairly high. A point not mentioned would be to also negotiate with Syria in an attempt to normalize its relation with Israel and the US; the dual goal being peace with Syria but also a weakening of Iran's position in the region, which would reflect itself at the negotiating table.

Via Matthew Yglesias

Syria or Iran first?

Indeed, the Syrian elite itself may be split over Western overtures and their Iranian relationship. Whether or not it is as quixotic a dalliance as the Times suggests, it is correct that Iran is the key, and a resolution of that standoff will force Syria to move so as not to risk further isolation. -Boz

I think the logic is backward here. After eight years of a Bush administration which strengthened Iran's standing in the region through a succession of blunders, Iran's position is strong enough to be able to extract significant concessions on any sort of deal it would agree to sign with western powers. I do not think that a new President in the White House will magically shift the balance of power in the Middle East; we saw how that worked at Vienna in 1961 in regard to Russia. Iran has few incentives to give up on its nuclear program now; it knows that if it manages to build nuclear bombs, the balance of power will be further shifted toward them. I think the smart thing to do is weaken Iran's position through diplomacy and then reach a deal, rather than attempt to do so when Iran's position is strong.

Syria has shown its willingness to negotiate with Israel and to work with the west even during the Bush years. The leaders of the country are largely secular and come from a small religious minority of the population (Alawite) who have had problems of their own with fundamentalists. Therefore, they do not have any ideological objections to cooperation against terrorism. While allegedly "allied" with Iran, Syria is definitely the minor partner in the operation. The odds are that they dislike Iran's new influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah, since Syria considers Lebanon its own backyard. Again, Syria has no ideological commitment to its alliance with Iran, it is simply a marriage of convenience by two countries hated by the west. I think Syria would be much easier to bring into a peace deal with the west and Israel, by giving them back Golan Heights, normalizing relations and maybe recognizing its "special relation" with Lebanon*.

Making a deal with Syria would improve chances of reaching a satisfying peace deal with Iran, especially if other policies intended to isolate Iran diplomatically such as improved relations with Russia are pursued.

*The caveat is that this strategy depends on a Livni win in February.

Via: Arthur Goldhammer