U.S. Needs an Ambassador in Syria

The political quarreling over President Obama’s appointment of Robert Ford as U.S. Ambassador to Syria distracts from the original reason for the decision. Rather than focus on the process of Ford’s appointment, the debate should center on the strategic realities that make it crucial for U.S. interests in the Middle East.The U.S. needs an ambassador in Damascus because Syrian cooperation is essential to achieve three key U.S. goals in the region: countering the rising threat of Iran, diminishing Hezbollah’s power and influence, and achieving Arab-Israeli peace. Petty procedural concerns should be superseded by these core strategic objectives.Presidents of both parties have long used recess appointments to advance nominations that would have difficulty getting consent from the Senate. President Bush famously employed the tactic in 2005 to install John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN—one of the most controversial figures to ever represent the U.S. in that body.In both cases, Presidents Bush and Obama made their appointments with very clear intentions. Ambassador Bolton was directed to pursue aggressive reforms at the UN, and Ambassador Ford will play an important role in attempting to alter the balance of power in the Middle East.Iran’s growing influence has been a top security concern of the U.S. and its regional allies for decades, but in recent years Iran’s power has steadily increased. In many respects the 2003 invasion of Iraq accelerated this trend. The 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is also attributed to the direction of Iran’s influence.The international condemnation of Syria’s alleged involvement in the assassination, which among other actions included President Bush’s recall of the last U.S. Ambassador to Syria, helped to spark Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution.” While the movement successfully forced Syria to withdraw its presence from Lebanon, the unintended consequence was to drive Syria more firmly into Iran’s open arms.Iran uses this close relationship with Syria to provide resources and other support to Hezbollah, particularly their powerful militia, which maintains strong ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).This close collaboration between Iran and Syria is detrimental to U.S. interests in the region; it increases Iran’s overall influence, bolsters Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, and undermines the Arab-Israeli peace process.Fortunately, Syria is not as ideologically driven as many of its critics allege. If there is one thing that Bashar al-Assad learned from his father, it was pragmatism. From 1970 to 2000, Hafez al-Assad successfully steered Syria through some of the most turbulent times in the nation’s history, thanks to his adaptive political skills.While not as skilled, experienced or brutal as his father, Bashar has nevertheless reflected some pragmatic tendencies since first taking office in 2000. Economically and politically, Syria remains one of the most internationally isolated nations in the world. Nevertheless, the regime has remained remarkably stable despite living in a very militarized and politically tense neighborhood. Geographically, Syria is wedged between the two largest regional conflicts the Middle East has experienced in the last decade—the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.The perseverance of the al-Assad family cannot be attributed to any controlling ideology or grand strategy, and is largely the result of shrewd decisions by the leadership to maintain their own power and position. But within this seeming maze of self-interested behavior lies an opportunity—one that has apparently been lost on opponents of Ford’s nomination.Republicans and Democrats must abandon the abstract squabble over whether the act of sending an ambassador constitutes an unnecessary political ‘concession’ or reward for bad behavior, and instead focus on the potential gains.The U.S. should take advantage of Syria’s pragmatism by designing incentives that nudge them out from Iran’s orbit. With all combat troops scheduled to withdraw from Iraq by the end of this year, the U.S. is rapidly losing its ability to counter Iran through hard power alone. Since Syria is also the most important link in the supply chain from Iran to Hezbollah, a bilateral U.S./Syrian dialogue is doubly important.Those reasons alone should be more than enough, but the inability of Israel and the Palestinians to resolve the settlement dispute and move forward with the peace process increases the stakes even further. At least for the near term, the potential for Syria to follow the examples set by Egypt and Jordan in signing bilateral treaties with the Jewish state may very well be an easier next-step in achieving Arab-Israeli peace.While nothing is guaranteed and any future progress will likely be incremental in nature, long-term success in such a complicated diplomatic environment will require the skilled efforts and full authority of a U.S. Ambassador. Clearly, the potential benefits of even a marginal shift in the Iran/Syria relationship are worth that effort. Steve Stoddard recently completed the Elliott School's MA program in International Affairs with dual concentrations in Security Policy and Middle East Studies. He studied abroad at the American University of Beirut last year and worked for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from 2006-2008. He can be reached at steve_s@gwmail.gwu.edu This image is being used under Creative Commons licensing. The original source can be found here .