Prospects for U.S. Diplomacy in the Middle East

On Thursday, January 22, Thomas A. Dine and Ambassador Samuel W. Lewis joined an Israel Policy Forum conference call to report on their participation in a recent U.S.-Syria working group meeting in Damascus. IPF National Scholar Steven L. Spiegel moderated the conversation. The following is a summary of their remarks and recommendations.

Thomas A. Dine: Senior Advisor, Israel Policy Forum; Senior Advisor, U.S.-Syria Project, Search for Common Ground; former President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; former Executive Director of AIPAC

Ambassador Samuel W. Lewis: Middle East Advisory Board Chair, Search for Common Ground; former U.S. Ambassador to Israel; former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department

Thomas A. Dine:

A U.S.-Syria working group was put together a year-and-a-half ago, under the auspices of Search for Common Ground, to find ways to normalize the rock-bottom U.S.-Syria relationship. The participants include eight prominent and influential Syrians and eight Americans. Last week, in Damascus, the group met for the third time, focusing on an action plan for the future.

The meeting took place during the second week of the Gaza violence, and that violence was displayed on televisions everywhere, up and down the streets and in the shops of Damascus.

Samuel W. Lewis:

The Syrians made very clear that as long as the violence was going on in Gaza, there was no way that they could visualize continuing the indirect talks with Israel.

If the current cease-fire, shaky though it seems, continues for a protracted period, the Syrians have signaled a desire to return to negotiations. If things stay relatively quiet in Palestine, there could be a moment of opportunity for Syrian-Israeli peace. And if a breakthrough with Syria is made, then there could be a significant chance for improving the prospects in Palestine.

The Syrians would like the tone of the U.S.-Syria relationship to go back to one of normal communication and diplomacy after eight years of what they view as ostracism and siege. They are also hopeful that President Barak Obama will undertake a much more energetic effort to help achieve successful negotiations across the full range of Palestinian-Israeli and Palestinian-Syrian disagreement.

Thomas A. Dine:

By calling Middle East leaders-Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert-on his first day, President Obama got involved immediately as he had promised.

We do not know what day 10 will look like. We do know that, for progress to be made, the United States has to engage early, often, and persistently. And that is what the new administration is signaling to the region.

Another positive development for the potential of both Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian peace is the return of former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to the diplomatic negotiating arena. Unlike most, he achieved a major win when he negotiated a successful peace in Northern Ireland.

Samuel W. Lewis:

Mitchell's appointment is both a vote for a broadened American role in the Arab-Israeli arena, and a mandate from the president for vigorous engagement in the region over a protracted period of time. That is what is going to be necessary for progress to be made.

Mitchell is a superb choice not just because of his record in Ireland, but also because he has a remarkable degree of balance and persistence. He demonstrated that, first in the Irish negotiations, and then in the commission that he led on the crisis in the Palestinian territories following the breakout of the second intifada. The Mitchell Commission made some very good and balanced recommendations to President George W. Bush, which were more or less ignored.

Thomas A. Dine:

What the Israelis would like to see from any deal, whether on Gaza or on Syria, is action that stops Hamas and Hezbollah from rearming. What Syria would like is to have the United States in the room for any negotiation.

In last week's interview with Der Spiegel, Syrian President Bashar Assad signaled a desire to find a way back to Washington. That is leverage for the United States. Trilateral talks between Israel, Syria, and the United States could be the start of serious conversations, not just bluster.

Samuel W. Lewis:

One positive straw in the wind happened last week. In a public comment, Assad said quite clearly that Syria opposed arms smuggling into Gaza. The arms he was referring to come specifically from Iran.

That does not mean that Syria will sever its ties with Iran completely or immediately. The Syrians give the impression that they believe that if they develop a good relationship with the United States again and the U.S. plays an active role in the peace process, then they will slowly but surely turn their faces westward and lessen their ties to Iran. There seems to be a general understanding among many Israelis and Americans that the 30-year Syrian-Iranian alliance is not going to be transformed over night, no matter what happens with Israel and the United States.

There are two problems to deal with. One is the U.S.-Syria problem, and the other is the Israel-Syria problem, and they are not exactly the same. But it would be an important step for the new administration in Washington to make a serious effort to return to more normal diplomacy with Damascus at an official level, as a prelude to being able to do something more serious on the Israeli front.

It is clear that Syria is not going to conduct serious negotiations with Israel again without the United States there. So a working relationship with Damascus should be reestablished. Then, we should be prepared to put our shoulder to the wheel when the Israelis and Syrians are ready to talk to each other again.