Barry Rubin mines the Pesach Haggadah to illustrate how Syria has been working against American interests in the Middle East:
Back to Ford and Syria. Yet even if Syria is not building apartments in east Jerusalem, it might still be a threat to U.S. interests and regional stability. (Note: The previous sentence was sarcastic.)
If Syria was not sponsoring the Iraqi insurgents to overthrow the government in Baghdad so as to replace a regime linked with the United States with one servile to itself, it should have been sufficient to show how instability in the region serves Syrian interests.
If Syria was not sponsoring Hizballah and others to seize control over Lebanon it should have been sufficient.
If Syria was not sponsoring Hamas to sabotage any peace process and seize control over the Palestinians it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not oppose peace with Israel so as to destroy that country and replace it with a pro-Syrian Palestinian state it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not back Iran in order to destabilize the Middle East to destroy relatively moderate Arab regimes that oppose Syrian leadership over all the Arabs it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not do everything possible to destroy U.S. influence and interests in the region it should have been sufficient.
He was critiquing Ambassador to Syria designate, Robert Ford’s comments at his confirmation hearings.
At his confirmation hearing, Robert Ford, ambassador-designate to Syria said:
“I do not see how instability in the region serves Syrian interests.”
So here is Syria, a radical, anti-American regime allied with Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism, and Ford says that this government has no interest in stirring up instability and cannot receive any benefit from doing so? Of course, Ford rightfully does not want to criticize Syria before arriving there as U.S. ambassador. OK, understood.
But does he have to indicate such an appalling view in advance? Doesn’t this throw away all U.S. leverage over Syria in advance? I can tell you that this is precisely the way Syrian leaders are portraying American policy nowadays. Of course, Ford is saying this because it reflects the thinking of this administration and the president.
For those who don’t remember, Syrian President Assad responded by a call from the State Department for better relations, by openly embracing Iran.
But last week there was the head of Senate foreign relations committee, Sen. John Kerry pining for better relations.
After his meeting with Mr. Assad, Mr. Kerry said in a statement that the United States and Syria shared “a mutual interest in having a very frank exchange on any differences that may exist, but also on the many, many agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.”
The United States and its Arab allies are hopeful that re-engagement with Syria may encourage its leaders to distance themselves from Iran, an economic and strategic alliance that Syria has fostered for decades.
Mr. Kerry has also expressed concern over Syria’s role in providing arms to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and a political and social organization deemed a terrorist group by the United States.
The question for the administration is, “what part of ‘go fly a kite’ don’t you understand?”
Crossposted at Soccer Dad.
