[psychoteddybear]

Finally, the increasing polarization within the Arab world and the strengthening of Sunni radical groups in the region raises multiple questions about the future of the Assad regime. Israel fears that any agreement reached with the current Syrian government could be rendered useless after a change of government in Damascus. If this were to occur, a more radical faction could take power in Damascus and then Israel would find itself in a weaker position, facing a radical Islamic regime in Syria.

Despite Assad's clear desire to maintain power in Syria, challenges to his legitimacy remain. In fact, this reality is one interest that both the Syrian and Israeli governments have in common. Israel fears the rise of radical Islamic forces on its borders, which it could face from Syria and possibly Egypt. For Assad, the rise of radical Sunni Islamic groups -- even though he supported such groups in the past -- poses a threat to his power since radical Sunnis are opposed to Assad's Alawite rule.

Syria's Regional Tools of Influence and Israeli Concerns

The Golan Heights are not Israel's only concern in regard to negotiations with Syria. Damascus' regional role, especially in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and its alliance with Tehran represent significant matters of concerns for Israel. Israel has called for Syria to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and has asked Syria to weaken its ties with Iran before dialogue begins. Syria rejected these demands, underlying its commitment to begin negotiations based on the Madrid conference without any pre-conditions from both parties. Nevertheless, the Syrian government leaked a report showing its willingness to revisit its policy in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and toward Iran if it were to reach an accommodation with Israel.

The reason behind such a stance is clear. Syria's alliances are its tools for projecting its power in the Middle East. Syria is not a "great power" in the classic sense. It does not have a large population, a strong economy or a powerful military; nor is it blessed with oil and other natural resources. It is internally divided and heterogeneous. Nevertheless, its geographic position gives it a central role in regional dynamics. As a result, Syria makes up for its lack of power using different methods to spread its influence with the aim of achieving its interests and altering regional power balances.

Therefore, it is likely that if Syria does not see a clear possibility of reaching an agreement, it will continue to pursue its current policies. It supports Hezbollah to place pressure on Israel on its northern border and to avoid a Beirut-based government hostile to Syria. It supports factions of Hamas to avoid a political agreement between Israel and the Palestinians so that in case of future Syria-Israel negotiations, Damascus has another "chip" to offer. It needs the support of Iran because Syria is isolated in the Arab world and the relationship gives Damascus increased regional influence.

A Complex Regional Geopolitical Architecture

A peace deal between Israel and Syria would have immediate effects on the regional balance of power. Such a settlement would occur under the supervision of the United States, which remains the key political player in the region. Therefore, if Syria achieved peace with Israel, Syria would be engaged in a new regional security architecture that would come at the expense of other Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. It is also likely that Syria would reduce its ties with Iran.

The long-term Syria-Iran alliance remains a tactical alliance dictated by common immediate interests and not from common strategic perceptions. Damascus is against a regional system dominated by one regional power and does not, therefore, perceive the rise of Iran as an opportunity, but as a potential peril. For its part, Tehran would risk becoming even more isolated in the region if its relations with Damascus were cut.

Therefore, all of the aforementioned countries will try to sabotage a possible Israel-Syria agreement. The Arab powers, and especially Saudi Arabia, are concerned about the regional role that Damascus has played during the past few years. Riyadh perceives Damascus as an "Arab hand" of Iran, and in Lebanon the two countries are pursuing completely different agendas.

Conclusion

The possibility of negotiations between Israel and Syria is one of the strategic keys to the future of the Middle East. In fact, the wide ramifications of such a development are also responsible for why an agreement has yet to be reached. There are simply too many different actors with different interests that would be affected by a peace deal between Israel and Syria; therefore, it is likely that these countries will move to avoid such a development. Additionally, there are other elements, such as the lack of mutual trust between the two states, which hamper the start of negotiations.

Nevertheless, it does not mean that this stalemate will cause war. Syria has no prospects of gaining control of the Golan Heights as a result of a military attack, while the Olmert-led Israeli government seems too weak politically to launch a war against Damascus.

Report Drafted By:
Dario Cristiani

------------------------------