In terms of US interests, how exactly does it “further” US interests to have the Golan in Syrian hands? Don’t remember ANYONE claiming the US should invade Lebanon, don’t remember any serious discussion of Syria either. If the US had really, really wanted to attack Syria it would have taken a few days to make mincemeat of the Syrian army.

“100billion borrowed from China”, what you mean the money they need to protect their currency and ensure their exports are competitive despite their pitiful productivity? Note that US debt is in the trillions, and China has around 500bn. The biggest lenders to the US are american pension funds and investment funds…

Israel has never threatened to make an attack on Syria, “US-backed” or otherwise. If you mean the occasional bombing well Israel has done that anyway and again needs no help to overcome Syria’s aging military. So exactly what “Israeli threat” is there? In the last Lebanon war Israel went out of it’s way to say it was NOT going to attack Syria despite the fact Syria was actively arming Hizbollah at the time. So this “threat” is simply a figment of your imagination. Israel also went out of it’s way to say it had no intention of staying in Lebanon or occupying any lands in Lebanon so this “desire for new lands” is also utter BS. The obvious reason for the war – that Hizbollah repeatedly makes unprovoked attacks on Israel – is apparently not “devious” enough for you…

Taking Syria out of Iran’s orbit and ending it’s support for Hizbollah MIGHT be in the US interest but Syria has made it clear that “returning” the Golan won’t cause that to happen. It may be in Syria’s interest but with next to no real industry and oil run out, the Assad regime needs Iran as a sugar daddy.

France is the old colonial power of Syria, it is the one that hived off Lebanon. It backed the christians against the Syrians, Chirac was the one leading the charge against Syria – NOT the neocons as you claim – so France is far, far, far from an “unbiased” observer…

Good post, pretty much every single point wrong.

But I’ve been to Israel and has seen the complete cynicism and outright laughter a “peace agreement” proposal between Israel and Syria gets. The Israelis know better. They have the hard bitter understanding of their neighbours and their enemies (one in the same).

Another point to add. The government is politically repressive, with billboards and posters of Assad everywhere in the country, but less than when the country was run by Assad, Sr. There is one party — the locals call it “Arab democracy”. You can pick up email on Yahoo, see news from most sites, but social network sites like Facebook and self posting video sites like YouTube are blocked, an attempt to prevent using these sites to organize any kind of opposition (I don’t see how that would work).

I also met quite a few Iranians at a Shia mosque in Damascus. They were extremely friendly, very nice and pious people who genuinely liked Americans. I’m usually a hawk on these kinds of matters, but getting to know the Iranians definitely made me question the value of any invasion. Sadly, getting tough as far as bombing of nuclear facilities might be the direction things head, which would definitely prod the Syrians in the direction of the West.

I’d add that a deal with Syria is NOT contingent on 1st solving the Palestinian Question, Israel – if it is capable – defeating Hez, or full independence of Lebanon. OR immediately ending Israel’s 31 settlements and 10,500 people – that Israel put in the Golan to acquire new lands for Zionism.

You cut the deal you can cut, when you can, and not wait on pie-in-the sky larger problems to be resolved 1st.

It is a pity we did not engage the Syrians earlier when they were very interested and making overtures to us after Assad died – being obsessed with looking after Israel’s interests 1st instead of ours, Lebanon’s independence, and the failed Grand Peace agreement Clinton tried to broker between Sharon and Arafat.

Then we had some very counterproductive Neocon warmongering right after the fall of Baghdad as the Neocons called for wrapping up Iraq and invading Syria and Lebanon to effect “regime change” in those countries.
Naturally, Syria was not keen on the “You’re next!!” threats and tacitly allowed the leadership and the financing of the whole Sunni insurgency to happen in Damascus, and allowed weapons and jihadis to pass through Syria to Iraq to ensure the US remained tied up, bogged down in Iraq..A very predictable and logical response to US neocon and Bush Warhawk faction’s saber-rattling for new wars.
That incaution by the US ideologues cost us thousands of needless casualties and IMO, well over 100 billion in extra costs Bush had to borrow from China.
Our lack of strategic vision made Syria gamble it had to become the sanctuary for the Iraq Occupation resistance. And it worked well for Syria’s interest. The US, bogged down and in a war of attrition, soon lost it’s taste for “easy exciting high tech Wars of adventure”.
Bush lost his credibility, the neocons their power base – and Syria was safe from both a US attack by 2005 and safe from a US-backed Israeli attack on them.

And Syria’s strategic game helped them enormously with the Israeli threat and the Golan negotiations. Right after Baghdad fell, Israel announced that it was going to build 900 new quarters for new colonists to the Golan, thinking that the US was omnipotent and Israel under the neocons, had unlimited support and backing for new Settlements. That confidence was mostly stifled by Bush’s getting stuck in the Iraqi tar pits. Then Hez’s political victory over Israel in the summer 2006 war diminished Israeli dreams of more lands taken for Jewish settlement even further.

As Iran’s proxy, arming Hez meant no Israel strike or forces pouring down from the Golan onto the Damascus Plain without Israel getting 10s of thousands of missiles raining down in their settlements.

Taking Syria out of the Iranian orbit, settling the Golan, and eliminating most Syrian backing of Hez is in America’s national interest. Even Israel’s. In Syria’s long-term interest, too.
France is a good “lead” negotiator. They are not compromised by the bias of other parties. The Americans and Russians are not trusted to be fair, good faith negotiators from past actions.

Syria is safe for tourism, yes, even for Americans. In fact, ordinary Syrians like Americans. They are able to separate the regime they don’t like from the people of the country because, well, they have to do it for their own country. The infrastructure is a little better than a second world country, the country is able to feed itself and it is self sufficient in oil. The lights stay on pretty much all the time and there is running water (that we shouldn’t drink).

Historically, the country has been condemned by geography by sitting in the absolute middle of the largest land masses of our planet. This means there have been well over a dozen major civilizations that have conquered, fought here, everything from the Egyptians, Hittites, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Ottomans (you get the idea) etc. and most recently the French. It is basically an open air museum with some of the best ruins in the world.

The food is excellent and people are very friendly, even coming up to you on the street to ask you to take their picture. Where else in the world does that happen? (OK, they don’t see many tourists, but the people are very friendly) It is also fairly tolerant of different religions with a sizable Christian community, Druze (not officially considered Islamic) and several other smaller groups. The Jews mostly left in 1948 for Israel and the U.S.

Lebanon is a no go zone, even out of the major cities, it’s just too dangerous for tourism.

Enough travelogue. What the Syrians want most of all is to get the Golan Heights back. I was there in 2000 and it is indeed a strategic piece of land, looking down on the Sea of Galilee on one side and Damascus on the other. From a military point of view, it is incredibly valuable to both sides and currently, with the exception of a few villages and some livestock, it is a big military zone and minefield. It is also a big watershed, and Israel wants to make sure they won’t get their water cut off, i.e. keep their hands on some of the water.

Having been to Jordan and Eqypt (Syria) and seeing first hand the benefits of a peace deal to all the parties, it does make sense to do a peace deal between Israel and Syria. The Syrians see how their neighbors are getting ahead and they are left in the dust. Syria spends 60+% of their government budget on defense — it is sucking the country dry. They can’t get any foreign investment, so the place looks like the 1950′s. It needs a serious overhaul, but with peace, some investment, a more liberal government. The people I met in Syria all want this.

Why would Syria consider this kind of deal? Because their Iranian partner could be on the receiving end of a major attack and be unable to aid them. Their Soviet partner has abandoned them, so they need to make a deal.

To make the deal work, in my opinion, the Israelis have to get rid of Hizbolah once and for all. Lebanon has to be treated as in independent country. And the Palestinian situation will need to be dealt with (there are large refugee camps in Lebanon). There are many Palestinians in both Lebanon AND Syria. Basically, the Iranians need to be kicked out to make the deal work. The Syrians aren’t going to give that up until they know they are going to get something really good, i.e. liberalized trade and investment, plus security, in return.

Could it work? Sure. It could also blow up as the Syrian government isn’t the most trustworthy peace partner. Guarantees of major powers will be necessary and of course you’ve got to have a military component in there to have “trust with verification”. France and Turkey are best positioned to help in this matter, with the “big stick” of U.S. military to deal with Iran or Syria.