The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.
“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”
Because it's just Jewish pressure that keeps us from kittens and fluffy bunnies in the Middle East. Always has been. Those pesky Joooz insist on not being murdered.
Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.
“Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."
Mr. Hadley reads Rantburg; Sec. Rice clearly does not. How in the world would anyone, anyone expect Syria to have a positive role in either Iraq or with Israel? They're presently engulfing Lebanon -- again -- and murdering political opponents there. They're destabilizing Iraq. They're meddling with Jordan. They're in a lip-lock with Iran. Baby Assad is the offspring of Daddy Assad who whacked many ten thousands of his own citizens, and Baby maintains the totalitarian police state because if he doesn't, he'll be swinging from a lamppost ala Mussolini (an apt comparison). Just exactly how does one see him and Syria as a 'partner in peace'?
Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.
Yup, it's the evil Jooooz who keep trying to defend themselves rather than an aggressive Iran that's enriching uranium, building missiles and exporting terrorism.
“He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit—that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks,” another official familiar with Mr. Cheney’s visit said. “Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis’ attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.”
Because all the attacks on Gaza are unprovoked, e'one knows that. Other than those Qazzam rockets. And the hard boyz slipping across the border to cut throats. And the splodydopes.
Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.
And that in turn means we have to order the Israelis, on pain of their $3 billion military aid a year, to move out of those areas even if it makes no sense whatsoever.
“Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”
And who cares about the Israelis anyway?
Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party’s leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker. “Everybody has fallen in line,” the official said. “Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq.”
I doubt that seriously -- Bush is not shocked. He's a superb politican; he saw what was coming even as he worked to head it off. And while a miracle would be nice, he's not going to give away the store to get one.
For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. “We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions,” Mr. Bush said. “I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world.”
That was the polite way of saying it. The impolite way is to note that the Mad Mullahs are everything we've said they are here on the Burg.
Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress—convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections—have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq. “I would look at an entirely new strategy,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. “We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want.”
It's too bad that Newt the visionary has become Newt the political schemer. He'd sacrifice the essence of the Bush policy -- that 'stability' is a failed model and what's essential is to remove the thugs and provide hope for people -- in return for an election.
In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.
Because they'll see quickly that, if we sacrifice Iraq and Israel -- especially Israel -- that we won't stand by them in any emergency.
“The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. “If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region.”There's a clear understanding.
But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.
“Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations,” Mr. Gates said. “Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference.”
We never got anywhere rewarding the old Soviet Union for their bad behavior. Reagan didn't reward them; he challenged them and they collapsed. We won't get anywhere rewarding Syria or Iran for their bad behavior. We need the Reagan approach. That's the lessson.
