There is no doubt that the bulk of the Middle East is in the middle of a two-step dance. The region, as a whole, stands on the brink of reforms and – using that massively popular catch word today – change. Whether those changes are for the good, only time will tell. But there is no doubt there are hotbeds of “talk” going on everywhere.
Lebanon finds itself not only sans President, but slowly being devoured by Hezbollah, demanding and receiving legislative veto powers. Meanwhile Hezbollah and Israel came to terms, via a German broker, for a prisoner swap – Israel is to receive the remains of the two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006, plus information on a missing Israeli AF pilot from 1986. In exchange Israel hands over “the longest-serving Lebanese prisoner in Israel, Samir Qontar, four other Hizbullah prisoners, the bodies of Hizbullah fighters and maps of mines planted by the Israeli Army in South Lebanon.”
Pakistan is busy striking deals with the tribal militants, but honoring the terms seems optional for both sides. S. Waziristan militants insist they remain open for business as a “centre for jihad”. Meanwhile the Pak leadership assures the US they will not be pulling the army out of the mountainous regions (violating the agreement), and the militants refuse to exile, or turn over, foreign militants in their midst (also violating the agreement).
Instead some tribal areas are now, effectively, under Taliban rule. A side effect, of course, hits Afghanistan – seeing increased terrorist attacks as Pak militants, temporarily playing nice on their soil, cross the border to wreak jihad havoc in Karzai’s back yard.
On other fronts, Abbas wants to talk to Hamas. And Ahmadinejad is sipping cha in Japan. Not to be left out of all the talking goin’ on, Iraq and US officials wrestle with the base foundation of the two security agreements meant to replace the UN Security Council mandate that expires in Dec 2008. This, of course, has commenter Doug in an apocalyptic tizzy in the “lull in Iraq news” thread, anticipating doom with each leak of yet another 2nd hand, hearsay detail on the undrafted agreements. But despite his personal opines, he’s contributing some good media fodder. Patience is required for the outcome – ala just how much control (or restrictions) the US grants to Iraq over our bases and military personnel in exchange for a continued presence. My guess is the POTUS will stand his ground.
Each of these constantly morphing talk-spots has their own indepth stories unfolding, and short of a great Disney/Pixar flick, is probably the best entertainment around… if you can keep up with it all.
But what’s caught my eye this week offering the best possibilities for “change” is the continued attempts at talks, negotiations, and/or appeasement using Turkish eyes between Syria and Israel. Or should I say sorta “talks”. Or perhaps talks that really aren’t talks, because no one’s talking. And if they are, they aren’t saying the same thing.
Today we find the media still hasn’t got a clue, and the stories vary in this May 30th article from the Jerusalem Post, depending upon the source info. But, by all standards, the two States haven’t thrown in the towel on their unofficial efforts. Reaching an agreement is a major step forward for transforming ME relations. It not only affords Israel an additional buffer in the region – a Syrian policeman, so to speak – but puts a rift between Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. And there would be one more “sorta” western ally in the ME fold.
To add to the confusion, a May 21sth media account from Haaretz says that effort went down in flames “following Israel’s refusal to hold talks on an official level – and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an “academic level”. But an Islam Online account the same day seems to indicate the efforts are still underway.
If we read today’s June 6th Asian Times, it appears that the talks do seem to have some underground life – despite all the media confusion. More than interesting in this account is that Iran is rather miffed with Syria’s steps closer to not only Israel and western allies, but also towards other modern Arab states.
What with chasing our tails on the carousel of conflicting info, it’s almost impossible to confirm exactly what is going on between the two. These vague “secret meetings”, but done with full knowledge of Israel and Syrian officials (huh?), were (and still are?) considered indirect. (underline emphasis added for Obama fans…) They were meant to create a principle of agreement as a “non-document” … or “a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing”, and is political in nature. And all of this has been going on, in some fashion off and on, since 2004. So to avoid misinformation on specifics that no on can agree on as fact, I’ll speak in generalities.
The historic bone of contention with Israel and Syria has always been the Golan Heights borders (using territory as of June 4th, 1967), water (Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, and Lake Kinneret), and Syria’s promise to end support for Hezbollah and Hamas, plus distance itself from Iran.
Israel’s Olmert is ready to give up the Golan Heights, despite the objects of the Israeli’s (70% per those pesky polls…). Israelis firmly believe this is Olmert’s way of diverting attention from accusations of accepting bribes from a US businessman. 18,000 supporters of the Jewish Golan settlers have promised to bolt the coalition if Olmert gives away the territory.
Israel’s motivation for a tentative peace with Syria… as long as the price is not too high to accept… is self-evident. They remain an island in the Middle East under constant threat and assault. But what is Syria’s motivation in bolting the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran fold?
Certainly, in the wake of Israel’s bombing of the suspected Syrian nuke site last year, and their only partial cooperation with the IAEA to inspect other sites, they have first hand experience that Israel doesn’t hesitate to exercise preemptive strikes when they feel it’s warranted.
But Syria has other reasons. And it comes down to simply economic survival and oil.
Syria is a non-OPEC oil producer. And the oil output of Syria, and other non-OPEC members (including Bahrain, Oman, Yemen) has been steading dwindling in the past years. Add the fact that al Qaeda strikes in Yemen have hindered their oil exploration, effectively scaring off companies who would willingly come in to increase production. Syria most certainly cannot afford such an explosion of violence in their borders.
Syrian Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Sufian Alaw worries that the decline, due to technological problems and depletion of reserves, will lead to Syria soon becoming an oil importer instead of supplier. Tho Syria is not an OPEC member, they are dependent upon the organization for defense of their oil prices. With the rising costs of oil, and the effect of int’l sanctions on Syria, they are taking some economic hits that do not envision such a rosy future.
Thus Syria has been playing both sides… on one hand, they show up at the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference last year, as if to prove they do not take their marching orders from Tehran. On the other hand, they assure Iran that a working alliance with the west will not cause them to abandon their Iran/Hezbollah and Hamas allies.
Yet it is these half-hearted steps that has the US, which has previously opposed Israeli-Syrian chats, now stand neutral and without major opposition. Bush recognized that Syria had the most to gain by peace with Israel, enabling a lifting of the isolation imposed by the beltway since 2003.
As far as Hezbollah, giving up support for them is not so costly for Syria, per Joshua Landis of Syria Comment. In an interview for CFR discussing the possibilities of such a peace between the two states, Landis points out that if Israel willingly cedes Golan Heights back to Syria, they have no need to arm Lebanese Hezbollah for armed resistance against Israel. A very easy concession to make.
The one sticking point, per Landis, is Hamas in Syria. They cannot turn over Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal. Turning away Palestine would be a “bitter pill” for the Syrians.
Syria faces a cross roads of what is their greater need… a tentative peace with Israel, and the financial relief of being a quasi-western ally, open to foreign investments? Or continued alliance with the enemies of the west, and a paralyzed economy. We already know they will concede… now it’s to see just how much.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Now THAT is what I call one helluva first post.
Great stuff Mata, and information that gets missed and/or sidelined by the major stories going on in the US.
A very concise overview, nicely done.
I might add that the Israelis and their Arab neighbors have always had some sort of informal, indirect back channel to speak to one another, usually through some intermediary. And, not necessarily a high profile intermediary. So, the Israelis and Syrians using the Turkish as an intermediary is not all unusual.
And, warm congratulations on becoming part of the FA.
I agree, David… the chit-chat has a long history. Sometimes with mediators, sometimes not. Never binding. Just a constant effort to frame the basics before getting down to the nitty grittly.
As of last summer (and when the Turks entered the picture), there were Syrian “experts” who said that Golan was never really the issue. What Syria really wanted was Lebanon. There may be a measure of truth to that, but I think they make light of the Golan issue, and most certainly the water source.
But there are some changes now that make this far more feasible, IMHO. And that is Syria’s continuing decline in both economic stability, plus oil reserves. Add the fact that they in effect have a “get out of jail free” card with Lebanon…. i.e. Hezbollah becoming a more legit legislative block with their recent coup, and the tabling of disarming Hezbollah… they have a chance for a win win. They’ve always been uncomfortable that Lebanon has been used as a wedge on Syria by the UN and the US.
However there will be no “direct” talks until after the US election, per Prez Assad himself. Since Syria is seeking removal of sanctions from the US as part of the package, he needs that assurance from the POTUS who’ll be around after Dubya.
But fascinating history-in-the-making, none the less. And I think a great chance for a major step forward. If the Israelis get swallow losing territory. Olmert is so unpopular, whether he has the authority to give away the farm, and have it stick, remains to be seen. But considering the ultimate trade offs, Israeli should mull it over with serious intents.
And thank you for the warm welcome. I considered it quite the honor with the offer of authorship by the FA gang.
…Yet, what’s so unusual, is the absence of the Bush Admin. in these ME “talks” the past weeks. MH jumps all over the ME and not even a token word for Bush is enlisted in this context.
I suggest it’s unusual given the nature of the ME as a “hotbed” and the goal of Bush’s foreign policy “to establish a beacon of liberty in the ME.”
Look at the last few of weeks: Lebanon was on the brink of chaos and renewed civil war, a deal was struck and brokered by …Qatar.
Israel and Syria conduct talks, the negotiations are being brokered by…Turkey.
Maliki invades Basra and Sadr City, the ceasefires were brokered by …Iran.
I find three lessons here.
One, Israel, Syria, Qatar, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey and James Baker know something that Bush and McCain do not. Enemies, divided by a bitter disagreement, must try to negotiate with one another in order to settle their differences, otherwise, “daybreak” will never happen.
Two, you can talk without necessarily being called an appeaser.
And finally, three, the democratic trait of ‘talking’ in the ME appears to be happening, albeit clumsily, as the Bush Ad. is relegated to the sidelines as their inability to influence affairs, designed to promote democracy, appears attenuated in the region.
Therefore, what we’re seeing here I believe is the growing independence– the real ‘birth pangs’ (…to quote Rice) –from a new Middle East without US support.
Why has this happened? The short and quick answer is the ME policies Bush pursued, including the refusal to open a dialogue with Tehran, have been responsible for the weakening of the U.S. position in the region, while increasing the Iranian position.
In other words, invading Iraq got bush so entangled in an Iraqi web, so badly, that to quote Bill Buckley, “I think [he] has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq… The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular.”
Yes, congrats, MataHarley.
Actually, Doug, I mentioned that you were contributing some good fodder, even tho we disagree on much. In addition, on the “Lull” link, I absolutely agree that what Iraq is demanding from the security agreements is unreasonable, and unacceptable.
Where we differ is that I don’t consider the original demands of either side as the final word. They are merely the preliminary proposals, where both sides are demanding the max. All negotiations start out with everyone trying for the whole enchilada. There’s time for this to morph to something inbetween.
Plus I do not believe Bush would acquiesce our freedom for military movement to Iraq. If he does, I’ll be right with you in complaining. But frankly, given his past performance and ability to stand his ground, I can’t see it happening. If we can’t come to an agreement, I take that as Iraq will end up standing on it’s own, and we’re free to come home.
As to the absence of the US in most of these talks, I’m not of the mind that the US should have their fingers in every pie, nor be the broker for every ME negotiation event. I focus on the end results, it’s promotion of stability and, by proxy, our national security. If that happens with someone else wearing the referee’s whistle, so be it.
I tend to think Turkey brokering Israel and Iraq is a better match. There is no reason for the US to get between Ahmadinejad and Japan (they do buy oil from Iran), Abbas and Hamas, or Pakistan and their militants. And I certainly believe the Israelis are capable of handling their own interests, without a US brokerage.
Tho not involved formally, we are the ultimate prize Syria vies for – ala removing the sanctions and opening up the country for western investments. When we slam the financial doors on tyrannical regimes, they feel the fiscal effects. Iran is suffering this even now. So as long as our military and economy remain strong, everyone wants our business, and our military backing (or technology… bummer).
Now the question is, can we keep that economy and military strong? Not if Congress intends to meddle in the free market industry with a heavy hand. Under an Obama Presidency, we may be able to create government jobs by adding endless nanny welfare programs. But they are not the productive kind of economic stimulus compared to increased private enterprises. Those kind of jobs are only as stable as the tax payers ability to continue to pay their salaries. A self-defeating economic plan.
MataHarley,
First, thanks for the not-quite-a-backhanded complement. ; )
Second, I probably wasn’t as sarcastic enough in the last post, on the “lull” thread, as I should have been. I do not believe the Iraqi’s decreeing they require all knowledge of all American troop movements and missions in the “security agreements is unreasonable, and unacceptable.”
Sorry to surprise you; let me explain.
As much as these infuriatingly lazy, Tehranian vacationing, USA money gulping, Iraqi parliamentarian clowns are a caricature of the real deal— you get what you pay for.
If you build a house on a soft foundation, it’s not to be trusted under stress.
Bush metaphorically did that in attempting to tape and glue together the democratic foundations when the political resources were never ready to support realistically stressful political demands. (Today’s event, the Arab press reports, is another example: Maliki can’t even keep his Dawa own party together: at least 10 of his own MPs joined up with the nationalist bloc with Sadr’s and others (They appear to be religious nationalists, probably opposed to the security accord, as they are in and around Najaf.).
But should we still should not expect them to hand over to us there sovereignty even if they are not the ‘real deal.’ I don’t think so. Germany and S. Korea never did; no other nations America has a SOFA with permitted such a free hand to the US’s military —as Iraq’s SOFA exploratory committee just recently learned.
The people of Iraq, despite their card-board parliament, deserve their sovereignty, as that’s the core of what democracy means and they are now demanding it.
As a side-bar to this thesis, this also empties the argument from Bush and McCain that the occupation of Iraq is the same as South Korea or Germany– as it isn’t.
Hence, this Iraqi decree is a consequence of the occupation. It’s to be expected! It’s just one of numerous outcomes of the usually listed reasons why we shouldn’t be there and need to leave. The place is simply too dangerous to manage as we are seen as ‘hostile foreigners’ (whether we are, or not), and the population doesn’t trust us.
It probably also explains why Bush’s hand isn’t in the details in the recent ME “talks”.
Well, Mr. Doug, despite that fact that we morph in and out of agreement… sorta… and that you forget to hit that “sarcasm” button :0)… I must say you are a very worthy debator on this subject. With each of your presentations, I have to go back and check some older archived data, and then do more cross checking with new data. It’s a research junkie’s dream.
Curt.. maybe we need to add a “sarcasm” smiley face insert on the editing bar, right?
From my understanding of SOFAs, of which we have probably over 90 of them, they generally address the same issues, but specifics vary from nation to nation depending on the purpose of the US presence there. I am no expert on these varied agreements, nor know of their actual contractual data available online – if available to the public at all. Perhaps some of the more involved FA military types here can add more information.
But I started learning about SOFAs back at the turn of the century – remember the haps at Saudi’s Prince Sultan AFB? No SOFA, as Col. Martha McSally learned years ago as a woman officer. She found out she had to wear Arab approved dress, and be driven in the back seat of vehicles, accompanied by a male on off-base activities. The military didn’t force her to wear Arab dress. And part of the beef was, I think (foggy memory) they didn’t advise her that would have to pay the consequences of not conforming to local laws for doing so. That’s where I first started digging a bit into SOFAs.
It was also at that same time that I learned – post operation – that the Saudis were none too cooperative during the 1998 Desert Fox operation. i.e. allowing the base as a staging point for sorties, or even just to shuffle aircraft to a different base. Needless to say, that host country restriction did limit the extent of the operation, and we had to do workarounds.
Unlike SA, where we do have vested interests in protecting much of the US oil supply, we’d be staying in Iraq to help protect their proverbial butts until they can do that themselves (talk about porous borders…). Because of that very different mission, I’d suggest there should be more flexibility in the military equipment and personnel then the SA non-agreement provides. SA was not in the fragile state Iraq is now, and their Arab rule was established and functional while Iraq’s still figuring out how to budget, allocate and dispense their government funds. We weren’t in SA to protect them or aid their state forces either.
Since each SOFA is catered to the mission… whether temporary or permanent, administrative, military or peacekeeping, etal… obligating ourselves to limitations similar to Saudi Arabia – when the objective bears no resemblence and carries far more risk of life – is just plain counter productive. We have some strategic interest with the bases for fast access to foreign militant flare ups and jihad cells. Not to mention intel. But it’s mostly a defensive, maintenance convenience for an Iraqi front line.
If we can not acquire what permissions we need to function for that mission, then I’m not so sure it’s worth having our presence there at all. If one wants to play “tough love” with the Iraqis, they can give us minimally what we need for the stated mission – plus protecting contractors and civilians (generally not covered under SOFAs).
If they don’t, it might be that magic moment everyone wishes. ala: give us what we need to do the job, or do the job yourselves.
I suspect that the agreements will come somewhere in the middle. Iraq knows they need the US presence and bases, but doesn’t want to yield ultimate power. The US negotiators probably have a bottom line of minimal needs. It may take some time to find that middle ground, but I expect to see concessions on both sides. Again, I think we have to wait until the bartering stage is over and we have some sort of agreement to assess, and it’s duration. Until then, I hold my criticisms in check.
But if the US concedes too much, leaving our soldiers and contractors vunerable to not only Iraqi law, but Int’l law, I’d say bring ’em home.
Proble3ms GROW. Before you knew of Maxwell, or Ostrovsky, you saw strange damage. And, in Israel, you saw the one power house, set up by Ben Gurion, where the country was to be led by politicians on the left, DISSOLVE.
Yes, on Golda’s watch, the 1973 war came to her and she and the IDF were unprepared. But ya know what? Her government doesn’t fall until 1977.
“Likud” is the word Arik Sharon came up with. And, he had to sell this idea to Menachem Begin. In his autobiography, WARRIOR, Sharon discusses his own distaste for Begin. And, besides, the Likud doesn’t win until 1977. (When Jimmy Carter is in the White House.)
Strange goings on in Israel. The Left ignored their right wing. And, the right became a powerhouse in destributing jobs to them!
In the Israeli system, anyway, you do not vote for any individual. You vote for PARTIES.
And, when Arik Sharon became prime minister, he also became disgusted with the Likud. They wanted to use him as a puppet. And, he didn’t allow this.
As to his stroke; he got terrible medical advice. But he did block Shimon Peres from “chair #2.” Instead? He gave this to Ehud Olmert. Who was also the powerhouse behind DISENGAGEMENT. It was Olmert who suggested these moves to Arik. Only Arik, though, had the charisma to pull this off.
Today, in Israel, (I guess just like here), you get people who vote PARTIES. They go into with their ballots, and nothing disuades them from voting the party ticket. (FDR was probably the last American president to enjoy this.) And, Eisenhower, in 1952, proved to the GOP, that they could win, if they stayed away from one of their “country club insiders.” And, went, instead, with a man who was very popular. (Here? They blew it in 1948. Because they let Truman, for his one and only term, run against the loser, Dewey. While Douglas MacArthur wanted to be chosen to head the GOP ticket.) Mistakes like that? Happens all the time in politics.
And, if you think politics just got dirty, think again. In the USA, the 3rd election we had, where Thomas Jefferson won, is still in the history books as the dirtiest campaign ever fought. (And, that’s saying something!)
In Israel, now, the stakes for Bibi Netanyahu are running high. He can see that up ahead all those Likudniks are heading for “Shinui-ville.” So, out comes the smear, with the American Talansky leading the parade.
You think Israelis are stupid?
I don’t.
I think Irsraelis even know that the “rape” charges against Katsav were false. But it was politically expedient to take him out of the president’s chair; just to give this to Shimon Peres. Who always wants POMP attached to his kiester. (In the matrimonial department? Peres is a louse of a husband. Katsav’s been much, much better.) But, yes. At the office, Katsav ended up with a nut case. Who then went on to blackmail him. Do you know this story? NO! Because the Israeli “legal eagles” are blocking it.
Just don’t assume you understand what’s going on.
Because Morris Talanasky is to Israeli politics, what Sharon’s doctors were to his stroke.
You’ve just got to wait and see how the people, themselves, deal with this stuff.
To help you out, billions were made for those involved in the Iran-Contra swindles. Of course, Robert Maxwell was involved. And, then he fell off his yacht.
I don’t assume to know what’s going on in Israeli minds, Carol Herman. What has become obvious since the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict last year is that Olmert is increasingly unpopular and that, again, leadership willing to give away Golan territory meets extreme opposition. Israel as a nation remains hawkish when it comes to defense. Can’t blame ’em… rockets fly into their territory, suicide bombers walk the streets, all adding to the rhetoric of Arab regimes promising their demise every other day.
Israel has an internal divide on the cure that’s as deep and wide, as any in the US. Yet it’s a year poised with leadership change and elections in many of the region’s players…. not excluding our own.
Certainly if Israel-Syria find a compromise they can live with, it will do much to defuse a good portion of ME hostilities with Syria as an additional buffer. And this particular agreement has a far better chance than another rocky, temporary peace/cease fire with Palestine. Economic pressures on Syria force them to be more flexible. And the seemingly unstoppable rise of a nuclear Iran gives Israel motivation to strike workable deals with neighboring nations. The advance of technology in hostile regimes, combined with the need of oil and water, is morphing the area’s political expediency – issues that were not present in the recent historic past.
As I said, it is a wait and see on Israel and Syria. But they demonstrate, and have been demonstrating, a mutual desire to get the job done. And the mitigating factors evolving may provide the needed push to fruition.