How could Netanyahu topple Assad and weaken Hizbullah in one fell swoop—a far more strategic opportunity than a strike on Iran? Hand over the Golan Heights with one condition, says Bruce Riedel.
I know I lack the nuance gene when I can't comprehend how giving Syria the Golan Heights--the one objective that Assad can point to as a reason to live under his dictatorship--will undermine Assad rather than be a victory that he can point to as his great achievement; and then accuse the opposition of nearly undermining that achievement by trying to unseat him.
Oh wait. There's the "condition" that will make this brilliant rather than bone-headed. I can hardly wait. What could it be?
Defense Minister Ehud Barak simply needs to convince Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to put back on the table the offer Barak made to Assad’s father in 2000—return of the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace with Israel.
Ah, the condition is that in the midst of an uprising, Syria gets a peace treaty with Israel that under the circumstances simply protects Assad's rear as he fights the uprising. There really is a difference between a peace treaty when Israel has the problem of a stable Syria being allied with Iran in support of Hezbollah and Hamas and when Syria is under siege which could break the Syria-Iran alliance and isolate Hezbollah and Hamas if Assad falls.
Oh, the Israelis can see from the Egyptian Spring that a peace treaty could be completely dependent on the whim of who is in charge. How confident can Israel be that whoever replaces Assad will honor the treaty? How confident can Israel be that Assad would honor the treaty once he has Golan back? He has said that opposition to Israel is the pillar of his regime. How will he rule without the pillar?
God almighty, when an enemy is busy wrecking itself as Syria is doing now, the least we can do is refuse to rescue them in the midst of their crisis.
UPDATE: We continue to talk about the problem while Syria kills the problem with the support of Iran, Russia, and China. The saddest thing about this crisis:
The silence of President Obama on the matter of Syria reveals the general retreat of American power in the Middle East. In Istanbul some days ago, a Turkish intellectual and political writer put the matter starkly to me: We don't think and talk much about America these days, he said.
"We don't think and talk much about America these days." Wow. Apparently, some people don't think "leading from behind" is leading at all.
Let's be clear, here. There is no objective reason for people to disregard what we think or might do. We remain by far the most powerful country in the world. The only reason for people to disregard us is because they don't think our leaders will actually use any of our immense power. For a ruling class full of their own nuance, they fail to appreciate that successful diplomacy relies on robust military power and the respect of others who believe (or fear) we are reliable either at their side or across the front line when the balloon goes up.
Why it isn't a no-brainer to send arms to Syria's opposition is beyond me. Assad supported al Qaeda in Iraq for years yet we tried to talk to him--but we're supposed to worry that if we arm his enemies he won't talk to us?
