The idea that Syria can or should be separated from Iran keeps popping up. It is a ridiculous idea, which I've written about before. However, most news stories discussing US Syria relations bring up the matter.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is sending two diplomats to Damascus. One of those two diplomats, Jeffrey Feltman, is former US Ambassador to Lebanon. Few Americans know the actors and actions of the Syrian regime and its Lebanese acolytes better than Feltman.
Feltman began his term as ambassador when Syria violated UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and ordered the Lebanese parliament to change their constitution to extend the term of the unpopular Syrian-appointed Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. Many of the politicians Feltman met and became friends with were assassinated, nearly assassinated, and threatened. In fact, a US Embassy convoy was blown up under Feltman's watch, and some observers believe that Feltman was the target of the attack. Some allege that Feltman's life was threatened on myriad occasions.
The New York Times reports on Feltman's service in Lebanon and his service as Clinton's emissary, but unfortunately the facts of the article are prefaced with silly assertions about Syria's relations with Iran and the potential for a change in US policy regarding Syria.
The article reports Secretary Clinton's hesitation to define the mission of her emissaries to Syria:
in a region where even small steps take years to negotiate, officials sought to tamp down expectations of rapid progress. “It is a worthwhile effort to go and begin preliminary conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting Syria’s wide influence in the region, as well as its troubled history with the United States. Yet, she cautioned, “we have no way to predict what the future of our relations with Syria might be.”
Yet, Mark Lander, the article's author, chooses to lead with silly assertions like his first sentence:
"Signaling a new direction in Middle East diplomacy"
Or this grand overstatement:
"The overture suggests how the Obama administration intends to tackle three interlocking challenges in the Middle East: the nuclear threat posed by Iran; long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria; and the grinding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Syria, regional experts say, could be the key to alleviating all three."
Who is suggesting this? Secretary Clinton? Feltman? Martin Indyk, a prominent supporter of the split Syria and Iran thesis, is quoted in the article, but why endorse his claims when the Secretary of State is asking for a period of review (a popular approach in the Obama Administration)?
US negotiations with Syria might have a relation to Iran, but that should not be the starting point, just as US negotiations with Iran should not begin with discussions about Syria.
Sending Feltman is a signal to the Syrians that the US might be willing to discuss, but the Assad regime will have to make tangible changes before relations warm. Given that the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon just began, the Syrians are under pressure to honor any warrants the Tribunal makes. The US also wants to make sure the Syria do not intrude into the Lebanese elections scheduled for June of this year.
We will wait to see what the negotiations bring. Reports like Lander's insinuate too much, too soon.
Leave a comment
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.