Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Is the U.S. now ready for talks with Syria?

Washington appears to be backing the Lebanese presidential contender favored by Damascus.

By Nicholas Blanford – Correspondent, Howard LaFranchi – Staff Writer / December 23, 2007



Beirut, Lebanon; and Washington

It's too early to gauge the impact of last week's Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, Md., on its intended goal: Israeli-Palestinian peace. But after the gathering, an emerging American approach to the region may end a crisis in Lebanon and weaken Iran's influence.

Skip to next paragraph

Over the weekend, Syria's favored candidate for the unfilled Lebanese presidency, Gen. Michel Suleiman, all but sealed the title. Lebanon's anti-Syrian, US-backed factions dropped their opposition to the general a day after Annapolis. Now, parliament is expected to vote for him on Friday.

Analysts say that the U-turn in Beirut can be traced to signals from the US that it wants to reengage with Syria. They say Washington wants to deal with the country it has maligned as an agent for Iranian designs in the region, including the trafficking of weapons to anti-US/Israel militias in Lebanon and Iraq.

"There is a new spirit in the Middle East, a real chance for peace. Will Syria be left on the sidelines or give up its support for terror, leave Lebanon alone, support the Iraqi government and make a decision in favor of peace?" Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, told students at Johns Hopkins international studies school in Washington last week.

Many Beirut politicians say the proposal to elect Suleiman, an army commander who took his post in 1998 when Syria controlled Lebanon, as president is the first reaction to a changing American stance toward Syria.

While this may be easing the political deadlock in Lebanon, which has not had a president since Emile Lahoud left office on Nov. 23 and parliamentarians failed to elect a successor, American allies and anti-Syrian politicians here are saying they look to be losing Washington's support.

"We are not saying they dropped us, but there has been a rearrangement of US priorities after Annapolis," says Ghattas Khoury, a member of the anti-Syrian March 14 bloc, which holds a slim majority in the Lebanese parliament.

"The Americans want a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that means talking to the Syrians," he says.

The March 14 bloc, named for the massive rally that helped drive Syria from the country, declared last week that it had reversed its earlier objection to Suleiman, who is also seen as close to Hizbullah, the militant Shiite group that heads the Lebanese opposition. The announcement, which came a day after Annapolis triggered instant speculation that a deal had been cooked up in Maryland between the US and Syria to end the crisis over the Lebanese presidency and ease months of tension among their the feuding allies in Lebanon.

But the Suleiman proposal was launched more than a week earlier, according to March 14 sources, before Syria even said it would attend Annapolis. But they say it was made in recognition that Washington's tough policy toward Syria was softening, entailing, they say, reduced US backing for March 14.

"It seems that the March 14 leaders looked hard at the options available to them, in light of public opinion and the need to get the presidential vacuum filled as quickly as possible," says a Western diplomat in Beirut.

But the diplomat added that the anti-Syrian block's fears of being "sold out" by the Bush administration in favor of rapprochement with Syria are misplaced. "The Lebanese are persuading themselves and frightening themselves of a monster that does not exist."

Permissions