Syria sets up for a showdown
■"Syria Offers Gradual Pullback of Its Troops from Lebanon," by Hassan M. Fattah and David E. Sanger, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1o.■"U.S. Rejects Syria's Withdrawal Plan for Lebanon: Citing U.N. Resolution, Washington Says Troop Pullout Must Be Quick," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A24.
■"Hezbollah Backs Syria, Challenging Lebanese Opposition: A militant leader chafes at calls for a quick Syrian pullout," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A3.
Assad says Syria will get around to pulling out its troops. It's just not saying when.
And the Bush administration says that's not good enough.
And the White House is right to push hard on this, because you need a Lebanon preoccupied with itself for peace to work in Palestine and Israel, not one that serves as staging ground for terrorist attacks. If Hezbollah is serious about being a party that serves the people, then it should get busy on that.
With Syria gone from Lebanon, then the real patron of Hezbollah will be the only local regime with serious influence over events there. That would be Iran. Can we scare Iran off like we seem to be scaring Syria off? If we can't, we might find ourselves stymied on both Israel-Palestine and Iraq, where Iran holds the only real vetoes now that we seemed to have lined up all the major Arab regimes and scared off Syria. In short, we seem to be winning the Sunnis and setting ourselves up for a showdown with the Shiites, with nuclear Iran as their gunslinger.
But remember who stands behind that gunslinger: New Core states like India and China, who've cut huge oil and gas deals with the regime. Is this connectivity to be advantaged? Or do we intend to isolate these rising powers as well?