The announcement in Ankara of Turkish-sponsored Syrian-Israeli negotiations didn't come as a surprise. Since Syria disclosed that the Turkish prime minister conveyed that Israel was prepared to pull out of the Golan, things have been moving in that direction. Both Israel and Syria have reasons to talk, and Turkey is glad to act as the go-between. For a long time, Syrian-Israeli negotiations were consistently beset by developments on the Lebanese and Palestinian tracks of Arab-Israeli peace talks. This time, however, things may turn out differently. The negotiations are taking place in the last months of the Bush presidency and perhaps even during Ehud Olmert's last days in office. With the Israeli prime minister under investigation for corruption, many in Israel have been calling for him to step down. There is a chance that Tzipi Livni, Israeli foreign minister, may take his place until early elections are held later in the year. After that, pollsters say, Binyamin Netanyahu, whose hardline policies on Syria are known to all, may emerge as Israel's next leader. What this means is that these elections are taking place at the eleventh hour. To judge their outcome, one has to assess the motives of the countries involved, as well as the ability of negotiators to reach a feasible settlement. In previous rounds, negotiators came close to agreement, but the deal didn't stick. Israel's motives for negotiations are not hard to guess. Olmert is trying to boost his popularity by proposing peace with the Syrians -- a prospect that may appease the minds of Israelis shocked by their country's poor performance in the recent war on Lebanon. Olmert wants to come across as a leader who seeks to avoid further wars. A deal with Syria, many would agree, is likely to cool things down on the Gaza front. Having failed to make a breakthrough in talks with the Palestinian Authority, and with the Palestinians not making a secret of their disappointment with the way negotiations have proceeded, Olmert is hoping to shift attention from Ramallah to Damascus. The whole thing smacks of a déjà vu. For some reason, Israel is in the habit of engaging peace initiatives in the final days of any US presidency. Recall talks between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. But there is more at stake for Israel than gaining time or boosting the waning popularity of its leaders. Alarmed by Syria's close ties with Iran, the Israelis think that by giving the Syrians a peace deal, they may entice Damascus to stay away from Tehran. Also, recent developments in Lebanon may have worked in Syria's favour. Israel knows that Syria feels emboldened by Hizbullah's victory in 2006. The Iranian connection is what made the Israelis eager to talk to Damascus. So what happens if a US- Iranian -- or Israeli-Iranian -- showdown occurs while Syria is in negotiations with the Israelis? Should talks be underway, the Israelis reckon, all-out confrontation in the region may become less of a possibility. Note too that the talks are taking place under Turkish, rather than American, auspices. The Turks are likely to want to appear as a fair broker, something the Americans have failed to do. And with US popularity, even amongst its friends, diminishing, there is every chance that the Turks would not be too influenced by US views. Again, much of this is about Iran, which is fast becoming a major player in this region. Both the US and Israel see every development in the region through the prism of their conflict with Iran. Unfortunately, neither the Americans nor the Israelis are willing to go the last mile to a "comprehensive deal" for the region. As for the Syrians, they know that it is in their interest to keep the region's issues tangled up, not separate.
