From the New York Sun Editorial, May 22, 2008:
... Is it possible, and if so is it proper, to reach an agreement with a state such as Syria?
... Syria has been and is on the wrong side of the war against Islamic terror. It sponsors terrorist groups and offers them safe haven; it is loyal to Iran's objectives and backs Iran's allies, including Hamas and Hezbollah....
...clearly American interests do not lie in a peace with the current regime in Damascus, with which our relations are close to a point of rupture. They have deteriorated sharply from when President Assad, father of the current Syrian strongman, would receive administration officials and even meet with the an American president.
Syria is also moving against the nascent democracy in Lebanon where its ally, Hezbollah, gained veto power in the Lebanese cabinet, a result of its putsch earlier this month. Hezbollah's ultimate loyalties are to Iran and the idea of a Shi'ite Moslem ascendancy, not to the Arab nationalist and fascist ideas which provide the rational for the Alawite's minority rule.
...In previous talks, it was understood that aside from the specific contours of an agreement with Israel, Syria expected Israel's assistance in securing its role in Lebanon and righting relations with America. That is obviously not a role that it would benefit Israel to play.
... the likelihood is that the talks that were confirmed yesterday to be underway indirectly will founder on the Alawite epiphany that peace with the West would bring new dangers from the Iranian-backed factions. So peace with Syria will have to await a democratic revolution in Tehran.
No comments:
Post a Comment