The recent gesture by the Obama administration to re-open the U.S. embassy in Damascus and renew talks with the Syrian government was meant to lay the groundwork for a resumption of Israeli-Syrian talks under American auspices. There is indeed a window of opportunity for Israel to make peace with another Arab country, which if achieved, would ultimately bring peace to the whole region.

Many hardliners in Israel feel the U.S. has managed to find and support the only nation in the region that is actively anti-peace, and who will return absolutely nothing for peace. They say “this idea that Syria can produce peace is an old liberal idea.” But so was the idea that Egypt could produce peace, and it did. It still does. No more war, no more bloodshed on the Israel-Egypt border for over 30 years. How many young Israelis and Egyptians owe their lives to this “old liberal idea?”

Syria indeed has more to offer Israel than any other country in the region. The Syrians have the Golan Heights issue, in which it is supported by the international community. Syria borders Iraq and could have a significant impact on Iraq’s future. Syria has major influence in Lebanese politics, to Israel’s dismay. They carry the Hamas and Hizbullah cards in their hand and enjoy the alliance with Iran, which annoys and disturbs Israel. Therefore, Syria is the nearest and strongest enemy of Israel; you cannot rule them out. Syria can offer everything and nothing. It has a lot of support in the Arab world. Without a genuine peace with Syria, Israel will never have peace with the Palestinians; there will always be bloodshed.

By making a true friend of Syria, the U.S. can put all of these things on the table and perhaps negate them. All it would take is the return of the Golan Heights and a few billion dollars a year in aid. For Obama, this is the bargain of the century. The current investment in Israel has returned only thirty years of settlement expansion and failed peace efforts. It has raised a generation of Israelis who feel entitled to American aid and who balk at American influence.

If the U.S. had continued to alienate the Syrian regime, that could have increased the likelihood of an emergence of domestic tensions, notably among the Kurds and the Muslim Brotherhood. We have all seen the effects of such domestic tensions in Iraq. The U.S. cannot find a substitute for Bashar Assad’s regime. Unlike the case with Iraq, it is difficult to identify a prominent Syrian opponent to the Syrian leader, inside or outside of the country.

The new Assad has proven himself to be a man of principle making the best of a difficult agenda. His approach to negotiations with Israel is correct. Assad’s argument all along has been that the only way you can really get a systematic peace process going now is bringing in America to broker it. And the American role would be very important. It’s a tremendous challenge for the Obama administration diplomatically: nurse an agreement over the Golan Heights, which everybody seems to want, and use that to start talking about regional peace.

And that would mean bringing Iran into the process while holding off the Israelis. The Israelis are interested in a Golan Heights settlement because they see a settlement with Syria over the Golan Heights as an issue that would isolate the Iranians from the Syrians and, therefore, give the Israelis more leverage to go after Iran, if they choose to do so, if they view Iran as a strategic threat. They don’t view the Palestinian issue, whether Hamas or Fatah, as a strategic issue. The Israelis see it as a tactical issue. The problem for Israel is that the Syrians have a different motive for dealing with it. They’re not interested in walking away from the Iranian agreement.

If the Obama administration can get into a possible settlement of the Golan Heights dispute, land for peace, we can get a regional peace process going. And then the United States would have to also accept the idea that Iran should participate. Richard Holbrooke recently talked about the inevitability of having Iran involved, because for the United States, you have to look at the idea of having Syria, Turkey and Iran all together, all border countries playing an enormous role in making sure that the Iraqis — as we walk out of Iraq, and making sure that that happens safely— have a lot to say about what’s going to happen inside Iraq. They can be moderating influences. Therefore, we can see the potential for an enormous sort of a change in the paradigm.

President Obama is looking for partners for peace in the Middle East. It takes brilliant and courageous leaders to make bold and decisive decisions; Israel has lacked those leaders due to corruption and a total disregard for the safety and peaceful existence of the Jewish state.

For decades, Israel has been able to indulge their greed for Arab land and their greed for American support at the same time. Now the time has arrived in which they will have to choose one and let go of the other. It still seems a good deal. Better be careful not to lose both.

The writer is professor of interdisciplinary studies at the University of Toledo.