Return to story

Two words sum up crisis: Syria, Iran

July 30, 2006 5:19 am

ALEXANDRIA-- I had the privilege of living 3 years in Israel, where I earned an M.A. in political science from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I also had the honor of living in Egypt, studying Arabic at the American University of Cairo. In my many years in the Middle East, I saw up close the peoples, cultures, and conflicts we see in the media today.

I saw how the constant state of war ravaged the countries and the peoples of the region--and how it affected individuals on a personal level.

A feeling of rage pervaded the air. People did not feel in control of their lives; they felt powerless to stop the violence.

The reality is that substantial majorities of Israelis, Palestinians, and Lebanese did, and do, want peace. However, the actions of some Palestinian extremist faction or Lebanese extremist group eventually destroys every peace initiative.

When I first arrived in the Middle East, I accepted the current misconception that the underlying problem in the Middle East was the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, or the Lebanese/Israeli conflict. Seeing the difficulties and suffering of people up close certainly enabled me to see the problems faced by individuals from all of those groups.

However, those crises were only symptoms. The underlying problems in the Middle East are the regional powers that foment violence, destruction, and hate by supporting and encouraging various extremist groups to advance their agendas, to wit: Iran and Syria.

The peace treaties Israel has with both Egypt and Jordan are examples of a "top- down" approach to peacemaking. Egypt was the most powerful and influential Arab/Muslim nation. When it decided to make peace with Israel, peace ensued.

Jordan was a much weaker country than Egypt, but still cohesive. So, when it decided to make peace with Israel, peace ensued.

However, the Palestinians and Lebanese have very weak polities. Much stronger Arab and/or Muslim powers have been manipulating them by supporting their extremist factions--so that any peace initiative eventually fails, frustrating the desires of substantial majorities of Israelis, Palestinians, and Lebanese.

Iran and Syria are the most powerful regional actors working against peace. They sow violence and seek to harm U.S. and humanitarian interests in the region. Only if the threats that these countries pose are confronted can problems such as Palestinian statehood and Lebanese sovereignty be solved.

Otherwise, Iran and Syria will continue to reignite these conflicts--and/or create new ones--to maintain and expand their influence in the Middle East.

Consider: In Gaza, just before the outbreak of the current hostilities, Hamas and the other leading party in the Palestinian parliament were about to sign an agreement on a governing framework for the Palestinian Authority that would have had Hamas implicitly recognize Israel for the first time.

However, just before signing the agreement, the head of Hamas' faction in Damascus independently ordered a raid into Israel that led to the abduction of an Israeli soldier.

The President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarek, personally negotiated a settlement between Hamas in Damascus and the Israeli government. However, Mubarek stated publicly that the Hamas leader in Damascus had come under substantial pressure from a third party not to reach an agreement with Israel.

Though Mubarek would not publicly name the third party, we can assume that it was Syria, Iran, or perhaps a combination of both.

The power of the two terror-supporting states is enormous. Despite the present Israeli/Lebanese conflagration, for instance, Lebanon and Israel did not have a current conflict. Israel had withdrawn from all parts of Lebanon six years ago in accordance with U.N. Resolution 425, and the U.N. had certified that Israel had withdrawn to the international border.

Following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, however, Iran and Syria armed Hezbollah with over 13,000 rockets and missiles, and encouraged Hezbollah to run raids into Israel to abduct or kill Israeli soldiers.

Iran has regional and global ambitions, as its development of nuclear weapons demonstrates. A nuclear Iran would intimidate the entire Middle East. Allies in the region would lose confidence in the U.S. because they would believe that the U.S. could no longer protect them and/or be a stabilizing influence in the region.

Moreover, Iran is supporting Shi'ite extremists in, and has sought to extend its hegemony over, Iraq.

Syria has regional ambitions of its own. Pan-Syrian nationalism is still a potent force. Syria has irredentist ambitions to part of southern Turkey and all of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Under its prior president, Syria had been able to extend its hegemony over Lebanon and essentially made it a province of Syria. Last year Syria lost much of its influence in Lebanon in the Cedar Revolution, and was forced to withdraw its troops.

So President Bashar al-Asad's nation now seeks to reassert its hegemony over Lebanon. Moreover, Syria is allowing, even encouraging, Muslim extremists to enter Iraq and sow further instability in the Middle East.

Rather than by responding to the symptoms, true resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict--and security and prosperity for both Israel and Lebanon--can be achieved only by confronting the regional powers manipulating extremist groups in Palestine and Lebanon, namely, Iran and Syria.