Whatever the Israelis offer, Syria won't give up its alliance with Iran, which allows it to punch above its weight in the region said Jonathan Spyer.
What else is new? Every so often Assad repeats the same old, same old. The alliance with Iran is Syria's upper hand. It has Hizballah and the Palestinian factions that are in the refugee camps all over Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and a long, largely unsecured border with Iraq.
Syria's importance has been greatly exaggerated in the Western mass-media. More than anything else, Syria is a passage for weapons (and men) to Lebanon, to Gaza and to Iraq. The main player is Iran. It is Iran that has ideological ties with Hizballah, it is Iran that has brotherly ties with Iraqi Shias, Iran that supports Hamas regime in Gaza, and Iran that seeks to dominate the region.
“Syria lacks the size of Egypt and the resources of Saudi Arabia. But it has been able to project power and influence in the region because of its willingness to support radicalism, act as a disruptive force and thus create a situation in which it cannot be ignored. Thus, Damascus backs a host of Palestinian groups opposed to a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Israel – including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP-GC and others. Syria offered significant support to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. And most importantly, Damascus maintains influence in Lebanon – following its ignominious departure in 2005 – via its relationship with the pro-Iranian Shia militia, Hizbullah.
The ability to foment chaos and project influence in Lebanon is key for the Assad regime.
…
[O]nly by backing the radical power in the region can Syria maintain its powerful role as mischief-maker. No Iran means no more fomenting radicalism, no more reaping the benefits of having to be bought off, no more pro-Iranian militias to help out in Lebanon, no return to Lebanon, and the nightmarish possibility of seeing major regime figures collared for the killing of Hariri. It is a near certainty that the regime will prefer to maintain all of these – with the additional mobilising charge of the “occupied Golan” into the bargain – rather than give it all up and become a minor, status quo power”
Even if Syria would be offered Golan and other perks, Syria cannot deliver. Damascus is not in control period. On the other hand, Assad regime would love to be once again in full control of Lebanon, and for that it might be persuaded to lessen support for the terrorist networks. However, that is dust in the eye. It counts for nothing.
“In other words, Syria is too deeply committed, on too many levels, to its alliance with Iran to consider abandoning it for the Golan and the Arab mainstream. Syria's conflict with Israel can't be separated out from Damascus's larger regional concerns. Hence, with all due respect to the Turkish mediators, we are faced here with another manifestation of that well-known Middle Eastern phenomenon: much ado about nothing.”
Exactly! Now that we know that, can we please move forward?
