by Barry Rubin
JIHAD WATCH
Listen how the administration's best expert onSyria tries to defend U.S. policy of being nice to the regime there. Then listen to the Egyptian foreign minister interpreting this policy as meaning Syria and its friend Iran are winning so Egypt better start thinking of jumping on the bandwagon.
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman is one of the smartest people in the administration's foreign policy hierarchy. As formerU.S. ambassador to Lebanon , he understands what Syria 's regime is like and how Damascus along with Iran and Hizballah are trying to take over Lebanon .
What's really fascinating is when smart people support administration policy in an honest way, since that shows just how thin the veneer is. My favorite was last September's New York Times editorial touting the great foreign policy achievements of the administration. All it could up with were closingGuantanamo Bay (nope, not yet done seven months later) and getting the Russians to "think" about sanctions (same as above).
So in this vein, here's Feltman explainingU.S. policy toward Syria in a congressional hearing. Let's listen:
"While theUnited States is working with our international partners to mitigate Iran 's influence in the region, Syria stands out for its facilitation of many of Iran 's troubling policies. Syria 's relationship with Iran seems primarily based on perceived political interests, rather than cultural ties or complementary economies."
Good that he starts by pointing out howSyria helps Iran . But then he tries—in very clear language—to explain why the U.S. government is engaging Syria 's regime and going soft on it.
What does he come up with? First, true they have perceived political interests in common but what about those cultural ties and economies? Regarding economies,Iran gives Syria lots of money, funds that Syria desperately need. That sounds pretty complementary to me regarding Syria 's interests. As for a lack of cultural ties, does this mean they can't be allies because Syrians don't like Iranian music? Or perhaps they have more culturally in common with the United States than with fellow Muslim-majority Iran ?
"But as with most partnerships, there are clear policy differences. With respect toIsrael , the Syrians have a clear interest in negotiating a peace agreement for the return of the Golan Heights, whereas Iran opposes any form of peace with Israel ."
Well, they have a lot of policy similarities: They both want control overIraq , Lebanon , the Palestinians, in fact the whole region. They both want Israel wiped off the map and America kicked out of the region. As for Syria 's "clear interest" one might ask: Who says so?
We get into the dangerous area here of the United States trying to tell Syria's government what its interests are rather than seeing what the Syrian government thinks and then acting accordingly. Note how theU.S. policy today is similar toward Iran and other dictatorships. Nothing is more ridiculous than some Westerner with no experience in running a Third World dictatorship telling the elite there that their real interest is being moderate and democratic.
Helpful Hint: If those countries become moderate and democratic than those running them now will become imprisoned or dead. The truth is thatSyria , like Iran , also "opposes any form of peace with Israel ." The regime just plays with the idea in order to lure unwary Westerners into the quicksand of giving it lots of concessions and gifts in exchange for nothing.
"Syria has a secular government, whereas Iran has a theocratic one."
Listen how the administration's best expert on
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman is one of the smartest people in the administration's foreign policy hierarchy. As former
What's really fascinating is when smart people support administration policy in an honest way, since that shows just how thin the veneer is. My favorite was last September's New York Times editorial touting the great foreign policy achievements of the administration. All it could up with were closing
So in this vein, here's Feltman explaining
"While the
Good that he starts by pointing out how
What does he come up with? First, true they have perceived political interests in common but what about those cultural ties and economies? Regarding economies,
"But as with most partnerships, there are clear policy differences. With respect to
Well, they have a lot of policy similarities: They both want control over
We get into the dangerous area here of the United States trying to tell Syria's government what its interests are rather than seeing what the Syrian government thinks and then acting accordingly. Note how the
Helpful Hint: If those countries become moderate and democratic than those running them now will become imprisoned or dead. The truth is that
"
Well, that's true as far as it goes. But precisely because Syria has a secular government it needs the Islamic cover of Iranian approval, with Tehran saying: Yeah, these guys might seem like godless Alawite* pagan infidels but in fact we give them our certificate of approval as good Shia Muslims who support revolutionary Islamism.
I mean, what's the problem? When they hold joint meetings to plot anti-American terrorist attacks and Islamist takeovers in Iraq , Lebanon , the West Bank, and Israel the Syrian leaders have to forego a scotch and soda?
Feltman continues:
U.S. policy therefore does not operate from an assumption that these two countries are a permanent bloc." Ok, fair enough. But one should mention that their alliance has now endured for around 30 years with hardly a scratch or a dent, that's the entire life of the Islamic republic of Iran so far! I'd suggest that one might say that the United States and the United Kingdom also don't necessarily form a "permanent bloc" either despite their cultural similarities. A few more gag gifts from President Obama to the queen and who knows?
Feltman continues:
"The goal of
"One way to do that is to demonstrate to Syria why it is clearly in Syria's national interests -- as well as ours -- for Syria to have better relations with its neighbors and the West and to end its support for terrorism and other actions that undermine peace and prosperity."
Right. But there is more than "one way" to demonstrate this idea. An alternative is to inflict high costs on
Feltman, I'm confident in asserting though I don't know him and have no inside information, understands everything I've written here is true. But as an administration official he has to say that stuff. The problem is that when we read his words we understand even better what's wrong with the strategy they're trying to sell. Of course, one could argue that
Once again, thank goodness for the Washington Post as a voice of sanity. It's latest editorial explains:
"Bashar al-Assad is proving to be an embarrassment for the Obama administration....The problem isn't that Mr. Assad is not getting the
Despite
Right, and how to make him listen? Do I need to tell you the old country joke about how to get a mule to listen?
The punchline is: You have to get his attention first. I'll leave you to fill in the rest.
But there's someone else listening:
So now the Egyptian government is starting to sound like it's moving closer to
The current Egyptian government doesn't like its Syrian counterpart for lots of reasons, some going back decades. The two countries have long been rivals for Arab leadership and
In addition,
Why then all the sudden friendliness toward
Well, the Egyptians may conclude he's on the winning side. The
So the Egyptian foreign minister leaped to
The Egyptians aren't so naive. They have tried and failed to reconcile Hamas and Fatah, surely knowing that Syrian and Iranian backing for Hamas is a big part of the problem. They are worried about
Rather, their problem is that if the only superpower isn't going to stand up and support their interests while acting against the radicals, the Egyptian government better start building its own bridges. This is nothing compared to what's going to happen when
*The Alawites comprise only about 12 percent of
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.