No one cares about the Golan

Ted Belman

In my article Greater Syria is the answer. Yes, no, maybe. written in Nov ‘06, I wrote

Syria holds the key. At the end of Lebanon War I, the US and Israel accepted the Syrian military presence in Lebanon in order to stabilize it. Lebanon became an extension of Syria. After the killing of Harari and Syria’s slide to Iran, the US and France wanted Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanon War II was the result.

Expect the US to try to cut a deal whereby Lebanon remains a Syrian extension but where Syria is clearly aligned with the US. Syria will also want the Golan back before agreeing to the switch, but will it insist on it. After all Lebanon is a good deal in itself. Turning it around, would Syria get out of Lebanon in order to have the Golan back? I think not. Lebanon is far more important to them.

Now Stratfor has just published The Shift Toward an Israeli-Syrian Agreement It also agrees with my position that there will be no deal for the moment and they go ontto describe the same deal that I set out above,

The issue boils down to Lebanon. In a sense, the Israelis had an accommodation with Syria over Lebanon when Israel withdrew. It ceded economic pre-eminence in Lebanon to the Syrians. In return, the Syrians controlled Hezbollah and in effect took responsibility for Israeli security in return for economic power. It was only after Syria withdrew from Lebanon under U.S. pressure that Hezbollah evolved into a threat to Israel, precipitating the 2006 conflict.

This was a point on which Israel and the United States didn’t agree. The United States, fighting in Iraq, wanted an additional lever with which to try to control Syrian support for militants fighting in Iraq. They saw Lebanon as a way to punish Syria for actions in Iraq. But the Israelis saw themselves as having to live with the consequences of that withdrawal. Israel understood that Syria’s withdrawal shifted the burden of controlling Hezbollah to Israel — something that could not be achieved without an occupation.

What appears to be under consideration between the supposed archrivals, therefore, is the restoration of the 2005 status quo in Lebanon. The Syrians would reclaim their position in Lebanon, unopposed by Israel. In return, the Syrians would control Hezbollah. For the Syrians, this has the added benefit that by controlling Hezbollah and restraining it in the south, Syria would have both additional strength on the ground in Lebanon, as well as closer economic collaboration — on more favorable terms — with Hezbollah. For Syria, Hezbollah is worth more as a puppet than as a heroic anti-Israeli force.

Stratfor gives the bottom line that I annunciated a year and a half ago,

Israel wants to secure its northern frontier without committing its troops into Lebanon. The Syrians want to guarantee their access to the economic possibilities in Lebanon. Neither care about the Golan Heights. The Israelis don’t care what happens in Lebanon so long as it doesn’t explode in Israel. The Syrians don’t care what happens to the Palestinians so long as it doesn’t spread onto their turf.

This deal will go down as part of a deal between Syria and the US. But we are far from such a deal. Until Iran is neutralized, nobody is going to budge.

I believe that Israelis will accept such a deal if it means peace agreements with both Lebanon and Syria and a demilitarized Golan but not without American consent.

But in the meantime, Top Syrian emissary: We won’t sever ties with Iran for peace with Israel

Syria will not sever ties with Iran and Hezbollah even as part of a possible peace agreement with Israel, a senior Syrian analyst who is handling the government’s contacts as it relates to the peace process said on Tuesday.

“It would be naive to think Syria will neglect or abandon its strategic alliances that do not stem from the Arab-Israeli conflict,”

Like I said, The Golan is safe, for now.