Where the "Syrian Track" Stands

One of the primary motivations behind last week's Annapolis Conference was to strengthen Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas in his internal struggle against Hamas, which took over the Gaza Strip in 2007. As such, Israeli - Syrian negotiations were given less attention, and would not have been included at all if Syria hadn't made a discussion of the Golan Heights a prerequisite for showing up. Still, there does seem to be movement on this front behind the scenes. But how serious are these talks?

It's not an idle question. March 14 leaders are basing their decision to support Michel Sleiman for President on the assumption that the Americans and the Syrians struck a deal at Annapolis. If the two rivals are heading for a rapprochement, the thinking goes, America isn't going to support a confrontational approach towards Lebanon's Presidential election. However, there isn't a great deal of public information that supports the claim that the American-Syrian relationship will undergo any dramatic changes.

Here's what's going on: Moscow might host a follow-up conference that would emphasize Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Moscow was a Cold War ally of Syria, and obviously has more pull over the Syrian regime than the American government. The New York Times quotes national security advisor Stephen Hadley saying that if Syria will, "give up their support for terror, let Lebanon alone, [and] support a new Iraqi government," then "there are opportunities for them in the Golan Heights."

Notice the formula: if Syria respects Lebanese independence, they can win back the Golan Heights. Lebanon is where Syria needs to make concessions, not what they win for good behavior elsewhere. This hardly seems to be a development that requires anti-Syrian Lebanese leaders to panic and endorse Michel Sleiman. In fact, they just might be squandering a golden opportunity to secure Lebanese sovereignty once and for all.