Is Pelosi's trip to Syria part of the Bush admin Israel rift?
Perhaps rift is too a strong word, but there has been a growing dissonance between the Bush administration and Israel that seems to have come about after Israel lost/stalemated its invasion of Lebanon.
The "hook" that got me thinking about this tonight is the NYTimes article "Israel’s Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale." I emphasize that the rift is between the Bush administration not the US because the actual stall on the arms sale to the Saudis is expected to come by US Congressional vote.
Leaving aside the obvious question (Just how much influence should Israel have?,) I think it draws more clearly that the Bush administration has found itself navigating between its "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps nowhere is this more clear than in relation to regional policy towards Syria.
About two months ago the US in the form of Condi Rice "demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria." At the time, the US and Saudis were attempting to pry apart Iran and Syria over Hezbullah's role in the government of Lebanon. The Israelis on the other hand, were trying to cut a different peace deal with the Syrians (preferring Syrian influence in Lebanon to that of the Iranians.)
Since Cheney's Thanksgiving trip to Saudi Arabia, the Bush administration has largely gone along with the Saudi side of this Saudi/Israeli strategy rift. (Of course, the Saudis got off that bus a week ago.)
So, maybe the real significance of Pelosi's trip to Syria is not just that she's going to Syria, but instead that she met with Olmert first and "carried a message of peace" to the Syrians.
Just speculative, but maybe something to watch.
Also, Check out this very weird "clarification" from the Israeli government issued after Pelosi's meeting.
The "hook" that got me thinking about this tonight is the NYTimes article "Israel’s Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale." I emphasize that the rift is between the Bush administration not the US because the actual stall on the arms sale to the Saudis is expected to come by US Congressional vote.
Leaving aside the obvious question (Just how much influence should Israel have?,) I think it draws more clearly that the Bush administration has found itself navigating between its "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps nowhere is this more clear than in relation to regional policy towards Syria.
About two months ago the US in the form of Condi Rice "demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria." At the time, the US and Saudis were attempting to pry apart Iran and Syria over Hezbullah's role in the government of Lebanon. The Israelis on the other hand, were trying to cut a different peace deal with the Syrians (preferring Syrian influence in Lebanon to that of the Iranians.)
Since Cheney's Thanksgiving trip to Saudi Arabia, the Bush administration has largely gone along with the Saudi side of this Saudi/Israeli strategy rift. (Of course, the Saudis got off that bus a week ago.)
So, maybe the real significance of Pelosi's trip to Syria is not just that she's going to Syria, but instead that she met with Olmert first and "carried a message of peace" to the Syrians.
Pelosi also said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. However, an Israeli government official later said this would only be possible if Syria abandoned terror and stopped assisting terror groups.
Just speculative, but maybe something to watch.
Also, Check out this very weird "clarification" from the Israeli government issued after Pelosi's meeting.
posted by mikevotes at
9:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home