Two Posts: Syriana (the Rendon Group version):

...Yesterday, according to a Washington source with an ear on the Levant, the Rendon Group, a government consulting group which worked closely with Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, was asked to organize a "narrow focus discussion group" to examine the case of Badran Turki Hishan Al Mazidih. The Syria-based Al Mazidih, "also known as Abu Ghadiyah, runs the [Al Qaeda in Iraq] facilitation network, which controls the flow of money, weapons, terrorists, and other resources through Syria into Iraq," the Treasury Department said in a February press release announcing his designation as a terrorist. [...]

The group assembled by Rendon yesterday consisted of Defense, State Department and Intelligence analysts, according to this source. They concluded, he said, "that the US needed to send a message requesting Damascus' assistance on Abu Ghadiyah. But it should not be seen by Damascus as an American message." Ideas were floated to ask the Turks, or the French to play the intermediary. "A request will be made to the Iraqis to ask the Syrians for Abu Ghadiya's extradition," he says. ...

See the update here too:

A Washington Middle East hand who did not want his name used writes:

... The Feltman-Mustapha discussion had nothing to do with a potential deal and everything to do with the US government communicating to the Syrian one the elements it has about the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. [...] Any opening to or quid pro quo with Syria for the current administration will be conditioned on tangible positive steps on Lebanon. I suspect that the next administration, even a Democratic one, will have essentially the same policy, but with arguably a lower priority.

The substance of the US position toward talks is simple: you want to do it, do it. But we are not sitting at the table unless we have something tangible on Lebanon. We are not risking our multilateral policy, consensus with Europeans and Arabs, credibility, alliances, geopolitical interests to test the improbable proposition that talking to Syria will lure it from Iran, which is Israel’s primary goal.

What is important to understand is that in the 1990s, Syria would go through the US to get to Israel and Israel would go through the US to get to Syria.

Today, roles have changed. Syria hopes to bring the US to the table by calling for a resumption of talks. Israel is worried that its options for dealing with Iran are shrinking. The last card is talking to the Syrians. Also the problems on the Palestinian track make the Syrian one more appealing in tactical terms.

This whole peace negotiations business is a smoke-screen for much different calculations on the Syrian and Israeli sides.

And "Happy Sixtieth. Sorry about that Indictment."

Talk about awkward timing. Next week, President Bush heads to Israel to mark that country's sixtieth anniversary celebrations. But as Israeli media have reported this week, a rapidly moving corruption investigation has put the political future of Bush's chief interlocutor there, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, in jeopardy. [...]

Fevered speculation aside, Olmert could very well come out of the whole thing ultimately unscathed. Israeli political life has a kind of Italian drama and turmoil to it, and yet key players seem to have a decades long persistence. ...

Posted by Laura at May 6, 2008 04:39 PM