Washington is now listening intently to Syria. Last week, the Democratic Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad. And this week, Syria’s ambassador to the United States visits a high level official in the State Department. There is an improvement in relations as Washington considers the reactivation of its embassy in Damascus.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on February 25,2009. REUTERS/Khaled al-Hariri

Will President Obama apply his soft and smart diplomacy to Iran also? There are already some positive signs. President Obama’s conciliatory remarks to the Muslim world in his inaugural speech and the positive reaction he has received from Iran’s leadership are encouraging.
Iran and Syria are close allies and equally critical of Washington’s neglect of the Israeli occupation. The societal make up and national interests of Iran and Syria are very different. What ties the two nations together is their opposition to the U.S. and to the Israeli occupation of Arab land: Palestine of 1967, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Lebanese Sheb’a Farms. It is high time for the U.S. to go beyond timid diplomacy and endless talk about peace possibilities. It is high time for applying firm pressure on Israel to define its yet to be delineated borders. Such firm action will help Israel establish its much needed national security and, at the same time, improve Washington’s relations with Iran and Syria.

Some members of the U.S. Congress are aware that there is no way to revive the peace process without involving Iran and Syria. Kerry is among the American lawmakers who well understand the relevance of Syria and Iran to regional peace making. But he is among the few who dare show serious interest in normalizing U.S. relations with Iran and Syria. Israel has lobbied hard in Washington and succeeded in maintaining the isolation of Iran and Syria from the U.S.

The recent assignment of George Mitchell as U.S. special envoy to the Middle East is significant. His low-key diplomatic work may contribute to better understanding among all the stakeholders in the peace process.

How is Syria central to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Since 1967, Israel has occupied and established settlements in the Golan Heights, a populated, fertile and strategic Syrian plateau located on its border with Israel and Lebanon. Syria hosts half a million Palestinian refugees who live in camps and hope to return to their homeland. The “external” leadership of Hamas, the strongest Palestinian resistance movement, operates from Syria. Damascus has great influence on Hizbullah, the Lebanese resistance movement. Syria’s influence extends to all issues of Lebanese politics and to the 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad REUTERS

Iran, too, is central to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran is the main supporter of Hizbullah and an ally of Hamas. Following Israel’s example, Iran is apparently on the road to developing nuclear weapons. Israel considers Iran its greatest threat.
Despite its clerical autocracy and religious fundamentalism, Iran is a strong, populist and a relatively stable country. In time, Iran has a fair chance of achieving democracy. The vibrant Iranian middle class is increasingly distrustful of the ruling of mullahs as the economy worsens and freedom shrinks. If external threats to Tehran decline, particularly from the U.S. and Israel, Iranian society will be better able to focus on domestic political reform. The best way for the West to divert Iran from its risky nuclear path is to build better relations with the Iranian people. The current, misguided policy of isolating Iran has turned the country’s moderates and domestic reformers into ultra-nationalistic defenders of the state.

In the search for a solution to the seemingly intractable Middle East conflict, commentators overlook the potential of Iran and the relevance of Syria. Consider for example the opinion of Thomas Friedman in a recent article in the New York Times. While Friedman does advocate a softer U.S. diplomatic tone with Iran, he recommends the exclusion of Tehran from the dialogue on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In a January 27 op-ed, entitled “Abdullah II: the 5-state solution,” Friedman argues rather simplistically that if Saudi Arabia offers massive material aid to the Palestinian refugees, Egypt secures Gaza’s borders, Jordan secures the West Bank and Palestinian factions unite, then Israel would withdraw voluntarily from the Occupied Territories within five years. This “five-state” approach “would be an Arab solution that would put a stop to Iran’s attempts to Persianize the Palestinian issue.”

Approaching the Arab-Israeli conflict as a regional issue is on the mark, but leaving out Syria and Iran as pivotal stakeholders is not smart politics. Damascus with its Golan claims and Tehran with its regional ambitions are gatekeepers to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Attitude change is necessary but not sufficient to make a breakthrough in the Arab Israeli conflict. Already Senator Kerry may have promised President Assad political rewards such as the re-opening of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus and ending U.S. sanctions on Syria. In return President Assad has been asked to limit his support of Hizbullah and Hamas. Assad is indeed eager to regain normalcy in the international community, but not at the cost of abandoning his best allies.

To persuade Syria and Iran to significantly change their political positions, the U.S. must eliminate the source of insecurity that binds together four extremely different political partners: Iran, Syria, and the two Israeli occupation resistance movements — Hamas and Hizbullah. The U.S. should focus on ending the Israeli occupation and making international arrangements to provide lasting security for Israel.

Resolving the Arab Israeli conflict requires the active and coordinated participation of Syria and Iran.