US may join the peace talks in Turkey

Everybody is worried about progress on the indirect Syrian-Israeli talks, currently underway in Turkey. According to Syria commentator, Joshua Landis, they have either reached a breakthrough, or a dead end.

Contrary to what some media sources are saying, however, the talks are going well. Already 85 per cent of critical issues had been solved since the 1990s. The talks are going too well in fact and there is worry on both sides that an agreement can be reached within what remains of 2008.

The radical contrast between Washington's attitude, and that of Iran, is striking. The Americans still refuse to endorse these talks, writing them off as a hoax by the Syrians to end the US-imposed isolation that started in 2003. They still believe that the Syrians are more interested in a peace process, than a peace treaty. It is clear that no endorsement is forthcoming while George W. Bush is at the White House.

The Iranians, however, are clearly not happy with what is happening in Turkey. They were equally unhappy when the Syrians went to Annapolis last November or when earlier, they had received Nancy Pelosi in Damascus.

This deal, if it materialises, would re-structure the balance of power in the Middle East, and affect a basket of issues including Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, and Hamas.

They would want these talks to fail, as would several non-state players in the Middle East, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad (which all remain pro-Syria until today). If an agreement is reached this year, it would be put aside, awaiting a new US administration, until January 2009, maybe until summer.

Non-state players can take matters into their own hands, and create havoc in the Middle East - making ratification of an agreement impossible for Israel - between now and summer 2009.

And still the Americans are remarkably indifferent.

This might explain why the Syrians sided so loudly with Russia in its latest South Ossetia war with Georgia last August. They also explain all talk of Russia supplying the Syrians with arms. It's to serve as a wake-up call to the Americans.

Perhaps a Syrian alliance with a re-born Russia would knock some sense into the Americans, and get them to change course on Syrian-Israeli peace. Many believe that there is equal fear that the Israelis will back out of the talks when Ehud Olmert steps down this month but that is not true, since everybody who is somebody in Israeli politics is interested in peace with Syria.

Seriousness

Another way of getting the Americans more involved is to simply show more seriousness in the talks, and shift from indirect to direct negotiations, under auspices of both France and Turkey.

This was leaked last week by veteran US journalist David Ignatius, who recently wrapped up a visit to Damascus and wrote an article about it in The Washington Post. Ignatius wrote, "Syrian President Bashar Assad appears ready for direct peace talks with Israel, if the United States will join France as a co-sponsor."

If losing its role as a broker in Middle East peace to France and Turkey will not get the Americans interested, then nothing will. Regional players are betting on Bush's desire to leave behind an honourable legacy before leaving the White House.

He badly needs a 'success story' and is working on several fronts to achieve that:

1.Palestinian-Israeli peace. Any results have to wait until after Mahmoud Abbas leaves office in January 2009 - too late for the Bush White House.

2. Democracy in Leb-anon, foiled by an accumulation of events since 2005, and the system's inability to produce a president for 6-months, unless brokered by outside powers.

3. Stability, security, democracy, and prosperity in Iraq. That too has failed because Prime Minister Nouri Al Malaki is incapable of providing "any of the above."

4. Taming of Iranian ambitions, either by war or diplomacy.

Having failed in all four sectors, Bush might get provoked into trying his luck with the Syrians and Israelis.

The Syrians, however, do not trust Bush. The Americans need a serious effort to change that, if they think they can find Bush's "success story" on Syrian-Israeli peace. They need to send off a clear signal to the Syrians that they support the talks in Turkey, and are prepared to join the French to sponsor them.

Historically speaking, the Americans might always lean on Europe for solutions in the Middle East but they don't like it when Europe (either France or Great Britain) chart their own course with the Arabs, regardless of the Americans. The President of France Nicolas Sarkozy arrives in Damascus tomorrow for talks with Bashar that deal extensively with the peace talks.

The Americans wouldn't want Sarkozy's reputation enhanced with the Arabs at the expense of Bush. That too might be another reason for the Americans to walk into the negotiating room in Turkey... before the French get there.