Does Syria Matter?

For the first time in eight years, peace talks between Israel and Syria are underway. Eight veteran Syria-watchers —Tony Badran, Tom Dine, Martin Indyk, Joshua Landis, Moshe Ma’oz, Michael Oren, David Schenker and Andrew Tabler—weigh in on whether a deal is on the horizon.

The “Syrian Spring” arrived, it was said, when Hafez Assad died in 2000 and was succeeded by his son Bashar. An ophthalmologist with refined British manners whose previous executive stint was as president of the Syrian Computer Society, Bashar was an unlikely replacement for the military strongman known as the “Lion of Damascus.” Many in the West saw his rise to power as an opportunity to transform Syria into an American ally that would make peace with Israel.

Bordering Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon, Syria has been described as “the beating heart of Arabism.” During the elder Assad’s 30-year rule, he transformed the country into a hub of terrorism, managing to unite the disparate enmities and ideologies of the Middle East under the banners of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. Syria allied itself with Shi’ite Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. It supported the Palestine Liberation Organization, and when Hamas and Islamic Jihad replaced the PLO as Israel’s chief Palestinian enemies, Syria sponsored them, too, even as Assad dealt ruthlessly with Sunni extremists on his own turf.

The Syrian Spring never came: Bashar’s ascension coincided with the election of George W. Bush, and Syrian-American relations spiraled downwards. Syria opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and was implicated in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which led the United States to withdraw its ambassador from Damascus. Pressured to end its nearly three-decade military control of Lebanon, Syria further angered Washington by backing Hezbollah in its 2006 summer war with Israel and by allowing terrorists to cross its eastern border into Iraq, fueling the insurgency there.

History did not foretell Syria’s evolution into a nemesis of the United States. Under President Harry Truman, the United States supported Syria’s anti-colonial struggle against the French. After gaining independence in 1946, Syria underwent multiple coups and briefly merged with Egypt before reestablishing its independence as the Syrian Arab Republic in 1961. Despite American efforts, Syria became a Soviet ally.

When the Ba’ath Party seized power in 1963, Syrian-American relations deteriorated further. Born after World War II, this party of “resurrection” espoused a secular, socialist and pan-Arab ideology and took root in both Syria and Iraq. In 1970, Hafez Assad, a Ba’athist and a member of the Alawite religious minority, considered heretical by both the Sunni and the Shi’a, staged yet another coup.

Syria fought an unsuccessful war against Israel in 1967, losing the Golan Heights, and then joined Egypt in the 1973 war against Israel, and lost again. So Hafez Assad adopted a new tactic for regional power: When civil war broke out in Lebanon in 1975, Syria established a permanent presence there and backed Hezbollah, which spread throughout southern Lebanon in the early 1980s. By then, Egypt had made peace with Israel, and Iraq and Iran were bogged down in a bloody, decade-long conflict, leaving Syria as the main bastion of Arabism and resistance to Israel.

Just as Syria’s symbolic power peaked, however, it was weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union. There were signs that Syria would switch sides. Syria supported the United States in the 1990-1991 Gulf War and hinted when it first negotiated with Israel directly at the 1991 Madrid conference that it would make peace in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights. In 1992, as a sign of good will, Assad agreed to allow Syria’s remaining 4,000 Jews to leave the country. The Clinton Administration hoped that an Israeli-Syrian peace would isolate Iran and lead to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. At Camp David in 2000, the Israelis and Syrians came close but didn’t manage to close the deal.

Now there is new talk of a Syrian re-alignment. Bashar Assad and the country’s ruling elite are increasingly insecure: Syria, under stringent Western sanctions, remains one of the Middle East’s poorest countries, and an influx of more than a million Iraqi refugees has further burdened its struggling economy. During Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” Syrian troops were forced out of Lebanon. For the first time in decades, Sunni extremists pose a serious threat: In the most recent attack in September, a bomb exploding near a Shi’ite shrine in Damascus killed 17 people.

Last May, to the surprise of just about everyone and to the chagrin of the Bush Administration, indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria took place for the first time in eight years; Turkey mediated. With President Barack Obama’s team reportedly ready to change American policy toward Syria and support, even facilitate, peace talks, Moment asks eight veteran Syria-watchers to weigh in. They tell us why Syria matters and whether or not they believe peace is possible between Syria and Israel.—Jeremy Gillick

Andrew Tabler, former editor of the Syrian English-language paper Syria Today, fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Damascus and Washington, DC

Does Syria matter?
Yes. The U.S. will be withdrawing from Iraq and will need support from neighboring countries, especially on border security. Foreign fighters who have come in through Syria over the past five years have carried out some of the most spectacular attacks on coalition forces and civilians in Iraq. The other reason is the peace process, because many in Israel now seek negotiations with Syria to deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Is peace possible?
Syria is run by a minority regime that justifies its grip on power by opposing Israel, so a final deal has a catch for the regime. A peace deal would significantly change the rationale for the emergency law and the way the country is ruled. Also, Bashar became much more popular by supporting Hezbollah during the 2006 war, and he’s gotten much support by allowing Hamas and Islamic Jihad to have offices in Damascus. Giving this up would be hard. On the other hand, peace would be an incentive if it would lead to Syria’s receiving large amounts of western investment, although it would be very difficult for western companies to invest effectively in Syria. First, it’s one of the most corrupt countries in the Arab world. Second, the surge in Iraq pushed foreign fighters into Syria. These well-trained and radicalized fighters might turn their attention to the Assad regime. Third, Syria estimates that it has 1.5 million Iraqi refugees and it has been saying that in a stable Iraq, these people could return home. So Syria might have something to gain in talks in the months ahead.

Tom Dine, former head of AIPAC, senior policy adviser at Israel Policy Forum, Washington, DC

Does Syria matter?
If our goal of creating a regional peace is to be achieved, we need Syria. A peace between Syria and Israel will give motivation and momentum to a peace between Palestine and Israel, and even create a dynamic link between Israel and Lebanon. They’re interconnected.

Is peace possible?
The Turks have been facilitating Israeli-Syrian talks for months now, but both sides say they can complete this deal in 2009 only if the Americans are “in the room” and the United States is a guarantor of the treaty. That means a demilitarization of the Golan, water rights for all the countries in the area, normalization between Jerusalem and Damascus and a clearly demarcated boundary that doesn’t touch the water of Lake Kinneret. The goal is to create an atmosphere of trust between the two governments. The first thing the Americans can do is return their ambassador to Damascus. The next step would be to decide whether to end sanctions. In return, we would expect Syria to tighten its Iraqi border, to distance itself from Iran, to stop re-arming Hezbollah, and to stop hosting the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, in Damascus. If the Obama Administration takes an active role in helping to bring these issues to a positive conclusion, an agreement could be completed before Hanukkah 2009.

David Schenker, director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, DC

Does Syria matter?
Syria undermines stability in Iraq, in Jordan, in Lebanon and in Israel/Palestine. Through active and unrelenting support for terrorism, it has made itself into a central player. Without Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda, Syria would have virtually no influence in Iraq, Gaza or Lebanon. Its foreign policy in the region would be equivalent to that of Yemen.

Is peace possible?
The Syrians find negotiations for peace extremely useful. If the Syrians are talking to even two Israelis, it erodes international support for sanctions against Syria and for pursuing an international tribunal into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. After all, we wouldn’t want to find out that the Syrians killed Hariri and then have to hold them accountable for this murder, because that might derail the peace process. The next question is: Would the Syrian government consider it in their national interest to “join the Western camp?” They would get a free trade agreement, they might get membership in the World Trade Organization, they would have a European economic association agreement membership, and they would probably get U.S. economic assistance. But at best the United States would be a fickle friend, not a true strategic ally as Iran has proven to be over a 30-year period. The West is not an acceptable alternative, particularly if you look at what it means for Syrian regional influence. Talk to the Syrians if you must, but I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere.

Joshua Landis, administrator of Syria Comment blog, professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

Does Syria matter?
Syria has a crucial role to play in four major areas: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, because it houses Hamas and is the main Arab “spokescountry” for resistance to Israel; terrorism, because Syria uses Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups to fight for the Golan Heights; Iraq, because jihadists still go from North Africa and Saudi Arabia through Syria into Iraq; and Lebanon, where its influence has become very important to America over the past six years.

Is peace possible?
Yes. Hafez Assad wanted to finish this deal in the 1990s when President Clinton led peace negotiations. He went to Geneva to meet with Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak, but, as Clinton writes in his memoir, Barak got cold feet. It was a few months before elections, and Barak didn’t think he could get Israel to give back the Golan Heights. As happened with Egypt in 1979, Israel didn’t want to give up the Sinai, but Jimmy Carter closed the deal by providing Israel with gobs of money. If there could be peace with Israel—and everybody in Damascus is talking about it, as is Syria’s ambassador to the U.S., Imad Moustapha—that would help lift the strict sanctions against Syria. America now has a chance to bring Syria away from anti-Western alliances that it has needed to fight the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Tony Badran, research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Washington, DC

Does Syria matter?
Syria is a spoiler. Unlike the Saudis, who have money, or the Lebanese, who have excellent education and human resources that they export to the Gulf, the Syrians have no economy, no natural resources. Their society is in shambles. Be it Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaeda in Iraq, sponsorship of terrorism is Syria’s only foreign policy tool. People want to talk to Syria so that it will stop killing people or sponsoring people who kill people. So everybody who has an interest in peace processing will eventually be tempted to deal with Syria's blackmail, but to no avail.

Is peace possible?
The old peace agreement formula—land for peace—no longer applies. Now, as far as the Israelis are concerned, it’s peace in return for strategic reorientation of Syria—a formal break with the policy of the past 40 years, which is a non-starter. This would mean that Syria would have to break its alliance with Iran and stop supporting Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda in Iraq. Like Jordan and Egypt, it would become part of the pro-Western camp. Syria projects influence in the region well above its weight, and the only way for it to continue to do so is through proxy violence. A peace agreement would essentially end Syria’s role in the region.

Moshe Ma’oz, former adviser to Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Does Syria matter?
Syria is part of the Axis of Evil with Iran and Hezbollah. This is a real danger for Israel and also for the Sunni Arab countries that believe the Iranian threat is more serious than the Israeli threat. For Israel, the idea is to make peace with the Syrians to pull them out from this axis. One would assume that if Israel makes peace with Syria, Iran would cool relations with Syria. The Iranians have been quite concerned about the recent negotiations in Turkey. Another big issue is refugees. The Syrians have about 350,000 Palestinian refugees and so does Lebanon. Syria has enough room and if it gets money in a comprehensive settlement, it could help resolve the Palestinian issue by absorbing them.

Is peace possible?
Yes. It’s in the interest of both sides. The Syrians need peace, stability and economic development. Syria belongs to the Sunni Arab world, not to the Shi’ite world of Iran and Hezbollah. There are difficulties, but I think everybody in the Arab world is expecting them to join this Sunni Arab coalition and contain Iran. The Syrians also expect that America would be involved in the deal to guarantee that Israel will give back the Golan Heights. They also want American money, and European, Japanese and Gulf money, because their economy is failing. As we say jokingly, the Arabs want to make peace with America and they do it via Israel.

Michael Oren, senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and visiting professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University, Washington, DC

Does Syria matter?
Syria is a very big country, has tremendous prestige in the Arab world and maintains a large army. For 1,000 years, Damascus has been a center of Arab identity.

Is peace possible?
The Alawite regime is hated by Sunni Muslims, and I think that peace will not further ingratiate the Alawites among the Sunnis. Peace also means that Syria would have to break its alliance with Iran, its most important regional ally. I think that even if Bashar Assad wanted to make peace with Israel, the Iranians would kill him. They are not going to wait around passively and let their major Arab ally go over to their major enemy in the Middle East.

Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs under President Bill Clinton, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC

Does Syria matter?
Syria is the conduit for Iranian influence into the Middle East heartland. Iran is able to use Damascus as a way station for providing arms and financing training for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are operating on Israel’s northern and southern borders.

If we could find a way to make peace between Israel and Syria, Syria would be brought into the American-sponsored peace camp. And ultimately, if we can effect a strategic re-alignment, much like Egypt re-aligned from the Soviet Union into the American camp, we could have a profound impact on the region’s overall stability.

Is peace possible?
Syria’s not going to do a deal with Israel unless the United States is part of it. The payment that Syria receives is the relationship with the United States. But will it break with Iran and Hezbollah? I don’t know. It’s worth testing. The effort itself has benefits in terms of creating friction between Syria and Iran, placing pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah, while easing the pressure on the Palestinian Authority and Arab states that want to engage with Israel.

The Syrians have a tendency to prefer process to conclusions, which we saw in the 1990s. But we can benefit from the process, too. The difference is that in the 1990s we based our strategy on getting the Syrian deal first.

I think Barack Obama’s strategy should be to pursue both the Syrian and Palestinian tracks simultaneously and go where we can. I think we’re going to see three parallel diplomatic initiatives: one toward Iran, one toward Israeli-Syrian negotiations, one toward the Palestinians.

People on both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict are exhausted, military options don’t look very good, and there’s a feeling that maybe it’s better to try to resolve this conflict diplomatically. In the next four years, we could potentially end up with Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Palestinian deals.