Getting Syrious

After the release of President Bush's inadvertently recorded conversation with Tony Blair at the G8 Summit in Moscow, the most basic articulation of the United States' strategy for ending the conflict in the Middle East has been made [with some editing for profanity] public: it is to "get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this."

In all fairness, the plan is likely a little more sophisticated than it initially came across as. But will this policy of pressuring Syria work? It seems like one of the few reasonable options the United States has left. The US remains firmly behind Israel, and no doubt understands that pressuring the weak Lebanese state will yield no rapid or impressive result. Syria's sponsorship of Hezbollah gives it both the means and proximity to dampen Hezbollah's response to Israel.

But upon further examination, the Syrian strategy appears to be seriously flawed as well. The Bush Administration still sees direct negotiation with Syria as out of the question--there has not been an American ambassador in Syria for over a year. Besides, such direct negotiation would make it rather obvious to Syria that it is being bent to do the will of the US (and by extension, Israel). Thus, direct contact is a non-starter.

The alternative? Pressure by proxy: the United States will likely try to convince other Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt to do the negotiating on its behalf. These nations, with good reason to prevent further Israeli aggression and more credibility in the eyes of the Syrians, may be more effective. But this strategy has its shortcomings as well. First; the more indirect the pressure the more tenuous that pressure's results. If the US must first court Egypt and Jordan, how long before Syrians will begin to hear the case for cutting ties with Hezbollah? But perhaps more importantly, this strategy overestimates the influence that other Arab states have over Syria. Syria has been gradually shifting away from its Arab counterparts and towards Iran. This strategy thus requires a difficult and dangerous opening move: trying to push Syria and Iran apart.

Comments

To add to your post, I think the situation is easily encapsulated in the following:

What happens when you have a more powerful country aiding one in a perpetual warzone. This country trains its troops, gives it weapons it could not get on its own, and watches as the weapons are used to kill innocent civilians. When a connection is claimed between the two countries, the more powerful one distances itself and tries to remain neutral.

Is this Iran/Syria and Hezbollah? Or is this the United States and Israel?

Also the interesting part about Egypt is that Mubarak is the sole person interested in staying on the side of the United States. The people are extremely displeased about the situation. If the government does not do anything about it, as in history, they will find one that will.