Let Bolton Do It
Although the Iraq Study Group report now appears to be irrelevant (a Hanukkah present if ever there was one), the notion of “talking” to Iran and Syria is alive and well. The questions would be “who” and “about what.” Most immediately, Senators Dodd, Specter and Campbell are planning a trip to Syria. Senator Kerry is visiting as well; we only hope he doesn’t try to tell a joke.
Although the Iraq Study Group report now appears to be irrelevant (a Hanukkah present if ever there was one), the notion of “talking” to Iran and Syria is alive and well. The questions would be “who” and “about what.” Most immediately, Senators Dodd, Specter and Campbell are planning a trip to Syria. Senator Kerry is visiting as well; we only hope he doesn’t try to tell a joke.
But maybe they have a point; maybe it would be useful to have a face-to-face meeting with Iran’s Ahmadinejad and his puppy Junior Assad for the purpose of ensuring that American policy is clear and our determination to secure our interests is intact. This requires only two things: a policy and an envoy.
The second is easy. We nominate outgoing UN Ambassador John Bolton as the President’s Special Envoy for Syria and Iran.
No one, in our view, has a more intimate knowledge of the machinations of both countries. No one, in our view, has a clearer understanding of the threats each poses to the region, to our friends and to our interests. No one, in our view, better represents the President. No one, in our view, is more definitive than Ambassador Bolton.
But in order for him to be effective, the President will have to define America’s goals and interests in the region. Here the Iraq Study Group has done a service to the President and the nation, prompting a serious – although too public – review of our options and the requirements for success. (It’s OK to be nice about the process of the Iraq Study Group as long as no one takes its authors or its 79 recommendations seriously.)
An observation: In a variety of specific and well-known ways, Syria and Iran contribute to the chaos and bloodshed in Iraq, Lebanon and the PA territories. The U.S. cannot bribe them into stopping – they believe they are on a roll, and perhaps they are. They are better at undermining the moderate and progressive forces operating in the region than we are at protecting and strengthening them. Wrecking is easy; building is hard. They treat borders as artificial, relying on the U.S. and its allies to consider them sacrosanct. Whether the U.S. in Iraq or UNIFIL in Lebanon, allied military protection and intervention stop at the line.
That has to change. It must be U.S. policy to ensure that Syria and Iran understand we will use our military to guarantee the borders of Iraq, and we expect Israel and UNIFIL to do the same where they are. There is a lot of very loose talk about the American or Israeli military “wiping out” or “delaying” the Iranian nuclear threat. A much more manageable task, and much more credible threat, would be to eliminate camps, staging grounds, border posts and weapons depots. There are additional legitimate targets in Syria and targets in Iran along an ascending scale. They are participants in international warfare and cannot believe themselves exempt from retaliation.
It may be time for a credible American to tell Syria and Iran face-to-face what they have to lose and ensure they understand that they will lose it. Let Bolton do it.