BASHAR AL-ASSAD is proving to be an embarrassment for the Obama administration. In pursuit of President Obama’s policy of “engagement” with U.S. adversaries, the State Department has dispatched several senior envoys to Damascus for talks with the Syrian dictator. It has also nominated a new ambassador and repeatedly expressed the hope for a step-by-step improvement in relations. So far Mr. Assad has responded by holding a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, at which he publicly ridiculed the U.S diplomatic initiative. In secret, he has stepped up an illegal and dangerous transfer of weapons to Hezbollah’s forces in Lebanon.

Still I’m not sure about their criticism at the end:

So why persist with the “engagement” policy? “President Assad is . . . making decisions that could send the region into war,” was Mr. Feltman’s answer. “He’s listening to Ahmadinejad. He’s listening to Hassan Nasrallah. He needs to listen to us, too.”

That’s a reasonable argument; we don’t agree with Republicans who say the dispatch of Mr. Ford, a capable professional diplomat, would amount to a “reward” for Mr. Assad.

And nothing that the United States says will convince that he ought to listen to the United States. As the editorial goes on to explain, with or without an ambassador the administration has plenty of communication with Assad, so then returning an ambassador to Syria does amount to a reward for his bad behavior.

Barry Rubin after going through the “Dayenu’s” of Syrian enmity for the United States …

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.

comes to the point:

To some extent, the State Department has been forced to acknowledge some of these problems in the face of congressional criticism about sending a U.S. ambassador back to Damascus. I’m not saying that the ambassador shouldn’t be sent back–though we should remember that Syria has done zero about the reason which led to the withdrawal in the first place, its complicity in the murder of Lebanon’s former prime minister–but if he’s returned it should be to wage diplomatic battle, not appeasement.

The United States withdrew its ambassador as a protest against the killing of Rafiq Hariri. Syria has failed to come clean about the murder. So by returning an ambassador to Damascus the administration signalled to Syria that it can make mischief with no fear of consequences.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.