Creating A Domino Effect To Peace

The Annapolis Conference has come and gone, tensions in Iraq are increasing, and Lebanon is still without a president.

The American public was told the Israeli-Palestinian crisis would be solved before President Bush left office, the surge in Iraq would be successful, and the United States would solve the political stalemate in Lebanon.

Yet, little of this has come to fruition. There is a possible answer, which could spur a domino effect to peace and stability in the Middle East, but it would need bold thinking and ending isolationist policies.

This strategy involves talking to friend and foe alike. In particular, it involves giving Syria a seat at the negotiating table. Some may wonder why. Whether we like it or not, Syria has an important role to play in any comprehensive solution to issues in the Middle East and has strategically positioned itself as such by being involved in every major regional issue.

What would it take to create this domino effect? The United States must be a part of negotiations between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights. The two sides have negotiated in the past and came extremely close to an agreement under the Clinton Administration.

Although tensions have recently escalated between the two states, especially when Israel raided certain targets in Syria late last year, both sides appear interested in restarting talks and have hinted at secret discussions with Turkish intervention. The consequences of a peace deal between the Israelis and Syrians could have significant political implications throughout the region, but must include the United States.

Brokering a deal between the Syrians and Israelis would almost instantaneously weaken Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran all of whom are reluctant if not defiant in recognizing the Jewish state. Hamas and Hezbollah would lose their strongest and only vocal Arab ally.

Without Syria's active support, these movements could lose the status they maintain in the Arab world and face increased pressure to move further into the political process rather than turning to arms to solve regional disputes.

In addition, Iran would face even more isolation in the region as it would lose its only regional ally. Not only would it be more difficult for Iran to send arms to Hamas and Hezbollah, but it would also feel increased pressure regarding its nuclear program. Israel has made it clear that any deal with Syria would involve Syria changing its relationship with all of these parties. Although it is unlikely Syria would cut all of its ties with these parties, it is probable that it would significantly reduce its support of them.

If Hamas is weakened, it could be pressured to join the peace process and give Fatah an increased opportunity to make a deal with Israel without the fear of rejection by Hamas' supporters. A weak Hamas would be hard-pressed to maintain its current position towards Israel.

Further, a United States brokered deal could aide with border security between Syria and Iraq, and lead to benefits by using Syria as an intermediary to help bring a political solution to Iraq's sectarian conflicts and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Finally, part of any deal between Israel and Syria brokered by the United States would need to include Syria's help in resolving the political stalemate in Lebanon, where the Lebanese have not had a president since late 2007. The Syrians would no longer need to use Lebanon to wage proxy wars against Israel through Hezbollah, and the economic benefits gained from peace with Israel could counterbalance Syria's economic benefits of keeping a tight grip on Lebanon.

Time is of the essence, and this would be no easy task for the United States. It will require strong leadership and diplomacy along with carrots and sticks for all parties involved.

It will require leaders who are not negotiating out of fear, but not fearing to negotiate and who understand the implications of long term instability in the Middle East on U.S. national security.