Not at our expense
Israel must not pay price for American attempt to appease Iran, Syria
Up until now, the Bush Administration vehemently objected to any direct contacts with the two recalcitrant countries (and even indicated that Israel should refrain from responding to apparent peace initiatives from Damascus.)
The reasons for this objection are as follows: Iran's nuclear program and its involvement in fanning violence in Iraq - and the assistance provided by Syria to the Sunni camp embroiled in the Iraqi civil war, as well as Syrian support of Hizbullah and Hamas.
The official explanation provided by the White House, namely that its stance changed because all regional parties (that is, the Ayatollahs and Bashar Assad as well) have an interest in a democratic and prospering Iraq, sounds forced, not to say lame.
The State Department spokesman also painted his statement on the matter in particularly pink shades, saying the planned conference will enable all countries to play a responsible role in Iraq's future, while particularly emphasizing Iran's and Syria's importance.
What then caused this complete change in the Administration's position? Some believe that Washington is attempting to reinforce its status as the only influential and deciding superpower in the Middle East, in the face of Russia's attempts to take its place.
However, the Bush Administration's main motives can apparently be found in the realm of internal politics. It's not about Bush suddenly deciding to fall in love with the Baker-Hamilton report, but rather, he cannot ignore the fact that the new Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, along with a significant number of republican representatives who crossed the lines on the Iraq issue, are limiting his diplomatic, military, and financial ability to act, unless he complies with their main demand and engages in dialogue with Teheran and Damascus.
Israeli government surprised, as usual
The Administration apparently believes, or perhaps deludes itself, that it would be able to resist the initiatives aimed at forcing it to withdraw American forces from Iraq quickly, if only it accepts the demands on the Iranian-Syrian front.
It is no secret that Secretary of State Rice also espouses the opening of direct communication channels with those two countries, and it appears that the weakening of the Administration's hawkish branch assisted her.
On top of this we can add that the Administration's disappointment over Israel's lack of success in the confrontation with Hizbullah also assisted those in America who wish to see a change in the Syria and Iran policy, and perhaps beyond that.
Indeed, the planned conference's agenda does not include the Israeli-Palestinian issue or Israeli-Syrian affairs. Yet we should not discount the possibility that Israel's enemies or "kind souls" from Europe or the United Nations will raise those issues the first opportunity they get.
The turnaround in America's policy completely surprised the Israel government, as usual. Yet there is not much time left, and therefore Israeli diplomacy must act in full force and with great urgency in two directions at least: Prevent any change, or even postponement, in the determined American position against Iran's nuke program, and thwart any attempt to draw matters related to Israel into the "give and take" on the Iraqi question.
