Is Lebanon In the Hands Of Annapolis?

It seems increasingly clear that there won't be any movement on the Presidential front until after the results of Bush's Mideast peace initiative in Annapolis are clear. All the Arab states are probably coming, including Lebanon, with Syria being the only country still wavering. Today, Syrian lawmakers are making favorable noises towards Annapolis, and the general consensus is that they can't pass up a large stage to make their case on the Golan Heights.

For all of the Bush Administration's lofty talk about Lebanon as a democratic model and an important ally in the region, the hard fact remains that Syria's cooperation is far more vital to US interests in the region. The United States does not want to push for an absolute majority President in Lebanon before it sees what Syria is willing to offer at Annapolis. And if you are confident that Bush would not trade away Lebanese independence for, say, Syria dropping its support of Hamas (as part of a larger deal to strengthen Fatah's Abbas) and a resolution of the Golan Heights issue -- well, you're more optimistic than I am. A large part of Tarek Mitri's job at Annapolis may consist of eavesdropping on the conversations between Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem and Condoleeza Rice.

Syria might want to keep Lebanon's Presidency vacant until Annapolis as well, because it gives them another bargaining chip in negotiations with the United States. Still, I doubt that Syria and the United States are going to be able to make a deal. The Syrian-Iranian alliance still seems strong, and Syria has not exactly rushed to attend Annapolis. If the conference ends in failure and Lebanon is still without a President next week, the United States could revert to confrontation and support an absolute majority President. But, as of today, we are all stuck in a holding pattern.