Neoconservative hawks have clearly had their feathers ruffled by US Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus this week. The neocons, whose ranks include both officials and armchair intellectuals with considerable influence in the United States, Israel and even here in Lebanon, insist that Pelosi's move sent all the wrong messages to the region's "terrorists" and "terrorist enablers." A better approach, they argue, would be to continue to try to pressure and ignore states like Syria and Iran until they eventually collapse into submission.
But their prescription constitutes a willful denial of certain regional realities. Like it or not, Iran and Syria, for historic and geographic reasons, do have considerable influence in places like Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, and no amount of bullying can reduce their sway. What can change, however, is how these states use their leverage, and as we have seen, they can either help secure stability or create chaos in other countries. Obviously, isolation and intimidation give them no incentive to play nice.
But neocons cringe at the idea of opening channels of dialogue with Damascus and Tehran. Put simply, they prefer to demonize, rather than deal with, their political rivals. And that is exactly the tactic that they are employing when they say that Pelosi committed an error - or worse - by visiting Damascus. Pelosi is no traitor; she is a public servant of the American people and is acting to promote their interests and opinions, as expressed during November's elections. In fact, she would do well to take her trip to Syria a step further and also open channels of dialogue with Iran, as recommended by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton report
But Pelosi can't do everything on her own. Local actors need to remember that dialogue is a two-way street, and the American speaker's bold actions need to be matched with reciprocal gestures from those who are in the neocons' crosshairs. Syria, Iran and even groups like Hizbullah should now step up their efforts to keep the lines of communication clear and open and to challenge the faulty notion that they are bent on destabilizing the region.
Syria, for example, could do more to articulate its willingness to accept the new reality in Lebanon - and it could do so without sacrificing its own national interests. For Iran, releasing the 15 British sailors and marines captured in the Gulf was a good start, but a more pragmatic approach to the diplomatic struggle over its nuclear program might prompt similar moderation from the United States and other Western countries. The same is true of Hizbullah, a party that neocons like to portray as a foreign force in Lebanon that rejects integration, even though the party is an authentic and natural expression of local realities. The only way to counter false perceptions is for Hizbullah to make its positions on local issues less ambiguous.
Breaking down barriers of isolation will require action from both sides of the diplomatic divide. That is why the neocons are howling over Pelosi's visit: The realization of their ambitions requires continued hostility and instability in order to justify additional meddling in the Middle East.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp ... e_id=81214