Israeli-Syrian peace test

First of all, the relevant governments are not strong or committed enough to finalize such a historic peace deal. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is domestically weak. Syrian President Bashar Assad is isolated in the world. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is frustrated by a domestic political crisis. The fourth, but not the least, player is the US, which is stuck with a lame duck administration.

It's worthwhile to take a deeper look into the US position, which is an indispensable element of any peace between Syria and Israel. Frankly, had Washington believed it to be in their national interest to have peace now, they would have already started a process themselves, rather than leaving it to Turkey. The Bush administration's policy vis-à-vis Syria is clear: isolation. Their sentiment about the regime there is even clearer: distrust. Former President Jimmy Carter summarizes the current US policy as such: to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks, contrary to the desire of senior Israeli officials. No wonder even Assad himself realistically suggests official talks can only start only after the White House gets a new resident in January 2009.

According to Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian expert at the United States Institute of Peace, Damascus is mainly interested in the peace process with Israel to change the US policy of isolation into one of engagement. Syrians want to benefit from Turkey's relatively good relations with Israel and the US. That's understandable. But it is also clear that the US and Israel would set the bar high. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice linked any success to Lebanon: "If the two sides wished to exert an effort for peace, the United States would give its blessing and back these efforts. The problem is that Syria is yet to show a desire for Middle East peace, especially vis-à-vis Lebanon." American expectations from Syrians about Lebanon are as follows: demarcating their border, sending an ambassador to Beirut and stopping treating it as if it's a Syrian district.

At the crux of a peace deal between Syria and Israel lies the Golan Heights, the reason why previous talks in 2000 were unsuccessful. The Syrian government says it received word from Ankara that Israel was willing to give back the occupied Golan Heights in full in return for peace with the Arab state. But the devil is in the details. The Washington Institute fro Near East Policy's Soner Cagaptay thinks Washington does not believe there will be a positive outcome. But they don't object to Turkey giving it a try as well. His assessment for Israel's position is similar: Because Turkey is so enthusiastic to mediate, Israel does not want break Ankara's heart by saying "no thanks."

A recent disclosure by the US government indicating that Israel hit a suspected nuclear facility in Syria -- a claim that is rejected by Damascus -- has clearly made it even more difficult to have the US on board. One should not forget there is a powerful vein in Washington, especially represented by Vice President Dick Cheney, that is in line with hard-line Israeli political forces who believe Syria cannot be trusted and that, therefore, a comprehensive peace is not possible. This powerful group has the ability to undermine efforts that they don't like. One should not be surprised that the same circles do not see Turkey -- especially under the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) administration, which they suspect of "Islamism" -- as a completely honest broker.

Obviously, it's in the interest of Turkey if peace between a neighbor and an ally is achieved. This is consistent with Turkey's standing national security strategy of creating a peace zone in its immediate neighborhood. Pacification would provide enormous trade opportunities for Turkey in the region. Ankara would also boost its prestige in the region and in the world for helping in achieving a historic agreement. But one should be cautious, because nobody guarantees this will work. Iran, who wants to keep Syria on board to challenge Israel and the US for the foreseeable future, would be a liability.