the subcommittee will come to order before i get into the substance of this morning's hearings i just want to use a moment to note and call to the attention the american people what i consider the bizarre behavior of the bush administration for some time members of congress have been asking to be briefed on the situation of the alleged syrian nuclear reactor that was being built and reportedly destroyed by israel  most of us got no information whatsoever no member of this committee certainly that is on the committee today and finally we have arranged a hearing briefing by the agencies and before any of us was given any information prior to the briefing suddenly there appears in our nation's premier newspapers this morning the information that the administration has chosen to selectively put out even before members of congress and chairmen of committees were able to see th this is the selective control of information that led us into the war in iraq but administration that thinks it can selectively control and nation put out the information it wants to put out and hide the other information that it has it's not an identical situation but yet another example of the kinds of frightening orwellian behavior that the bush administration has exhibited and why members of congress in even greater numbers are not even going to classified briefings because after the classified briefing you're told you can't talk about what you heard in the briefing and then sometimes as a clouding of the mind did you read that in the morning's paper with everybody else or did you hear it at the briefing so many members want to be free to criticize the administration and do not attend the briefings and then we don't get all the information at the briefings that are even in the newspaper reports that are sometimes a lot more accurate and more comprehensive and to my knowledge none of the reporters on either of the papers here in washington that are reporting the story this morning have a security breach security clearances of any kind and yet staff members and committee staff members who have top clearances in the congress of the united states are denied access to the briefings and yet information is given out selectively to the press i just thought somebody should note that this morning while all this is happening and now for the substance of the matter some time not too long ago i asked u s ambassador serving in the middle east about what our syria policy was it was a clever diplomat an honest person and chuckled and he said to me that that answer would have to come at a later date it's very amusing but a troubling anecdote syria may be an economic backwater autocratic desert of concrete and crumbling past glories but it remains a key actor in the middle east and one that has for the duration of the bush administration been getting away with murder that's not a figure of speech during the bush administration damascus has literally been getting away with murder syria has been facilitating the movement of jihadi is in iraq who are killing our troops and murdering innocent iraqis syria facilitated the movement of jihad ease into lebanon armed them and set them to make war against the lebanese state many brave lebanese soldiers and palestinian refugees died in fighting in r l bread in order to preserve levanon sovereignty together with iran syria is responsible for the arming and rearming of his the law a terrorist group that started a war with israel in two thousand and six and then hid behind civilian skirts leading to billions of dollars of destruction in lebanon and hundreds of innocent deaths both in lebanon and israel in defiance of u n security council mandate syria's continuing to provide arms and facilitate the movement of arms from iran to his bill are in order to facilitate that group's efforts to undermine lebanon sovereignty and independence in its attempt to restore lebanon to its previous position a serious footstool damascus has almost certainly been responsible for the wave of murders of lebanon's pro independence leaders beginning in two thousand and five with rafik hariri and including cabinet ministers  parliamentarians prominent journalists and dozens of innocent civilians today as has been the case since the vendor two thousand and seven lebanon's government remains without a president and unable to resolve its political crisis because too many lebanese in positions of power namely the leaders of hizbollah amal and the cult of our own are more committed to the interests of syria iran themselves than they are to their own country syria may be counting on its continued ability to make trouble and to upset the situation in lebanon as leverage to avoid accountability they are deluding themselves if they think so  including a prominent us senator have suggested that syria needs to be appeased by watering down or even neutering the un security council mandate mandated special tri beautiful lebanon damascus they say has to be recognized as a power and then we have to acknowledge their interest in lebanon the past is the past they say let the living not suffer for the dead it's tempting to believe but it's not true peace cannot be purchased by rewarding aggression there will be no deal with the dictator in damascus lebanon is not for sale and justice is not a commodity in which the united states should trade the special tribunal will proceed and the guilty will pay for their crimes not the bombs the threats the hollow promises of peace will avert the justice that i coming the assad regime must know that salvation will not come from well intentioned american politicians ready to sell the freedoms of others to buy the illusion of security for themselves the future of us syrian relations remains to be written this is because so much of it will change within the next few years there will be a change of administration in the united states there will have to be elections in lebanon in two thousand and nine and the special tribunal will do its work with who knows what consequences the next president will not start with a clean sheet but nonetheless will certainly have to make a fresh start our current policy is not to have a policy instead we have a shopping list of behaviors we want syria to change yet again the bush administration has chosen hope and prayer as an alternative strategy so what should the next  administration seek from syria what is possible the answer depends chiefly on how the next president decides a key question can the marriage between damascus and tehran be broken up or are these two parties too committed to a shared vision of middle east restored to their liking recorded to their liking many analysts believe that the relationship between iran and syria is purely tactical and the transactional one implicit in this belief is the idea that if only the united states would make syria an offer of sufficient size and sweetness the access from tehran to damascus could be shattered in the middle east transformed syria in this  might even join our team in exchange for the return of the golan heights and the restoration of its overlordship of lebanon syria would we nag on its relationship with hizbollah give hamas the boot and slam the door shut on iran the mullahs would be cut off from their lebanese and palestinian terrorist proxies and isolated completely in the region the flow of the hotties from syria would dry up perhaps in return for restoration of saddam's old large s with iraq's oil and the situation in iraq would settle down further isolating iran from the arab hinterland faced with the united middle east the ayatollah would set their dreams of head to head to moni and islamic revolution the side that give up their nuclear program in exchange for international security guarantees it's a nice story but i'm not convinced it sounds lovely and it has a sort of logic to it but it is a fantasy the relationship between iran and syria is longstanding durable and is based on a bedrock of shared interest this relationship is meant to fulfill each party's deepest strategic aspirations and regional ambitions neither state wishes to live as a second class citizen in the middle east or to organize and run by washington kang cairo and riyadh they have bigger dreams and it is these dreams against which we must struggle a deal with syria and iran may be possible but i seriously doubt that it can be that it can be bought or sustained by sacrificing others or by offering just carrots and no sticks it should go without saying that a deal would also mean some kind of purposeful and principled engagement we shouldn't expect either syria or iran to get on their knees and there is certainly no need for us to do so either engagement is not synonymous with capitulation a peaceful middle east may or may not be possible but it cannot be achieved solely by holding our breath demanding obedience or sending in the marines it is more than past time for the united states to get back into the foreign policy business we could start by having a syria policy again on foreign policy we have the necessary information available to us whether it's dealing with north korea which has a great deal of nuclear weapons or whether it's syria which was attempting parent way attempting to develop nuclear weapons program as well as other countries in the middle east so it's of great concern that we read the stories in the new york times or other newspapers around the country before we even get briefed or before even a classified briefing or any type of rethinking arises because these are essential questions of how we decide to deal with north korea or how we decide to deal with syria that being said i am and i appreciate the comments and his perceptions of how this is playing out and of course look forward to the comments of our panel this morning and thank you for being here to share your information your perspective my questions obviously relates to the nature of the continued  responsibility that syria has for arming hezbollah and for weapons getting into that northern the southern border of lebanon and how that is going to impact the continuing dealings with israel obviously what happened there over the last couple of years was was tragic on many levels but it was fueled by this funneling of resources and weapons just like we have in gaza in the gaza strip right now so i'm interested in what your views are in terms of the status of that whole arrangement and what can and should be done in dealing with that it continues to be a military buildup it appears and you know there doesn't seem to be any check and balance to making sure that those rockets don't get into lebanon and of course as the chairman already pointed out what is this juxtaposition of syria's role how can it be as it has been expressed on the one hand that syria can possibly be isolated based on their their religious views and their their identity of who they would relate to whether it's iran or they can be brought into some type of relationship with other countries to isolate iran i was one big goal we have is dealing with iran th largest point for many of us in isolating and making iran feel the brunt of recognition that it is on its own and that its behavior is unacceptable but syria's continued client state and relationship th isn't changing any of that and iran continues to use syria for dealing with a lot of the other problems in that region so i'd be interested in hearing as a chairman and express your views on what can be done and should be done by the united states government and it chairman for i think what is an important and timely hearing i have to be on the floor ten o'clock so i want to defer my time to our witnesses so that they can form is their position i will observe very briefly that in conversations that a number of us have had with former secretary of state jim baker his comment about the need to continue to have dialogue with the syrians as he says sixteen visits before he finally was able to to reach some breakthrough on issues of trust i think are important i think we have to continue to notwithstanding the fact that we have a nuclear facility that apparently was lemonade continues to i think we're all the target on the country of syria as to what their true intentions are in the region and whether or not they intend to to play any sort of constructive role there's a lot of questions i have about this regime and the and what continues to keep but sustaining so i will look forward to the testimony and hopefully we'll get some additional insight in this area thank you very much thank you we do indeed this morning have quite a remarkable panel of experts starting with ambassador martin indyk director of the bond center for middle east policy at brookings institution during the clinton administration embassador indyk served two tours as u s ambassador to israel worked as director of the near east south asian affairs at the national security council was appointed assistant secretary of state for near east affairs before entering government service and that's redneck served for eight years as founding executive director of the washington institute for near east policy he has taught at the john hopkins school for advanced international studies columbia university tel aviv university and others with us also is amar abdul hamad was the executive director and founder of the sorrow foundation the u s based five zero one c three organization established to facilitate the process of democratization and modernization in syria through a variety of educational programs popular dialogues and grassroots initiatives in september zero five mr of the hobbit was forced to leave syria due to his political activism in the u s he has served as a fellow with the center for middle east policy at the brookings institution and at the international institute modern letters in las vegas while still in syria mr  what's the number of literary works including a novel and a volume of poetry he and his work have been featured in newsweek the washington post christian science monitor new york times and salon magazine dr peter rodman is a senior fellow in the foreign policy program at the brookings institution dr rodman joined brookings in march two thousand and seven after nearly six years as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the bush administration yes served five presidential administrations including in such positions as a deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs during the george h w bush administration and as director of the state department's policy planning staff during the reagan presidency he began his government service at the white house as a special assistant to henry kissinger on the national security coun without objection everybody's complete statements will be placed in the record and you may proceed as you well thank you very much mr chairman it's a pleasure to appear before you you and your committee microphone just  toward syria is something that hasn't had a lot of attention in the past eight years i think it's fair to say that it's been an intense disagreement between syria and the united states  towards iraq policy towards lebanon policy towards israel during the period of the bush administration and the dominant view of syria one that you've given eloquent expression to today has developed in washington that it's a country ruled by an unreliable leader expressing its ruthless ambition to dominate its more lebanese neighbor harboring palestinian terrorists and iraqi insurgents and of course from a strategic point of view most importantly maintaining an alliance with iran which is a strategic adversary of the united states in the region  with syria subject to a range of sanctions that are designed to try to punish syria for its toward behavior i think the results of this policy are mixed at best syria has managed to prevent the election of a new lebanese president and in the process is kind of stymied lebanese politics to the advantage of its local lebanese allies  dissent inside syria but on the other side there is another side syria for the time being seems to be cooperating with the special tribunal for lebanon it has attenuated its support for in annapolis for the annapolis peace conference and he's been very careful not to provoke any confrontation with israel or even retaliate for what appears to be an israeli strike on syri address the problem of what to do about syria and in essence since syria is a rogue regime for the reasons i've suggested the options boil down to three three the first is regime change try to remove the regime the second is containment and isolation and sanctions to try to positive incentives as well as maintenance of sanctions to try to encourage a better approach i think that the next president should actually  option and that's the one that i want to focus on for a few minutes that is the option of engagement and there are two essential  drivers for this approach the first is israel and the second is iraq the government of israel is keenly interested in engaging syrian peace negotiations and we have stories in the israeli press over the last two days which indicate that prime minister olmert has conveyed to president assad through the turkish government his willingness to withdraw from the golan heights and he has made clear in his own public interviews recently but he's been saying this for some six months that he wants to engage in peace negotiations with syria the fact that the syrians are also expressing similar interests means that there is in fact an opportunity here and for the united states not to seek to exploit that opportunity  itself to the level of the strategic adversity of the united states in the region and the challenge of dealing with iraq's nuclear ambitions its  to promote its sphere of influence in iraq and its interference both in lebanon and in the palestinian reign a challenge of dealing with that multifaceted  challenge to our interest from iran requires us to look at syria and see what we can do in terms of affecting the relationship iran and syria because to put it very simply syria is the conduit pipeline which is iran is able to spread its influence to lebanon and to the palestinian arena and interfere iran is it seems to me in the interests of the united states if such an opportunity exists and certainly as i suggested israel the governments of israel and syria are now making very clear its policy of isolation and containment but i think more importantly the bush administration is concerned that it would in the process end up sacrificing lebanon's independence on the altar of an israeli syrian base and that as you yourself made very clear i mean this is not something that the united states can be in the business of indorsing as you said lebanon is not for sale and the great fear is that somehow the israeli syrian deal will undermine our efforts to maintain lebanon's independence  i think that we have a different way of engaging the syrians and protecting lebanon at the same time and that a process that is designed to explore israeli syrian peace can actually with the us involved can actually serve to protect lebanon its interests rather than undermine it i say that because the syrians will not sit down with the israelis unless the united states is in the room that is there as a precondition but we can have our own precondition that we will only engage in promoting israeli syrian negotiations if it's understood between israel and syria syria end its support for hezbollah and the arms flow into lebanon such an engagement via the peace process has a number of other advantages as well it would help facilitate israeli palestinian negotiations because it would put pressure on hamas and palestine islamic jihad which are based in damascus which are the strongest palestinian opponents of the peace process that we're now trying to pursue that it would give greater political cover for the necessary compromises that the palestinian and the israelis would have to make to to  reach a deal because the syrians would be involved in the goetia actions as well and it would give the united states the next president the opportunity in effect to play one track off against the other kind of synergy that we were able to take advantage of during the clinton years when we had negotiations on the syrian track as well as the palestinian track but i think the most important reason for united states engaging syria via a peace process is as i said iran and i have no doubt based again on my experience during the clinton years that it would spook the iranians i don't believe it's possible simply to flip syria out of its alliance with iran i think you're right mr chairman to suggest that there are common interests there that they are strategic allies and that it's facile to imagine that you could somehow through engagement change that reality but what you can do and what will be a natural outcome of an israeli syrian negotiation is to create tension between iran and syria  because the iranians see syrian engagement with israel as advancing apex americana which they see as threatening their strategic interests in the region and the foreign minister of iran at the time in ninety ninety said the more a country gets close to the usurper regime he of course is referring to israel the more it will distance itself from us that is the way the pipeline to the middle east will be constricted as a result of this negotiation and in the broader context of approach to iraq it serves our interests to create some uncertainty  engagement with our eyes open with our awareness of the nature and interests of the syrian regime with an effort to ensure that lebanon's independence  maintained and with a valid skepticism about the nature and intentions of what the syrians are up to nevertheless can serve american interests ackerman distinguished subcommittee member i would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify here today change in syria is not a matter of if anymore and who back some factors influencing and dictat change are already in progress and all for the most part the product of internal dynamics external influences the dynamics are those of daily life according to recent reports forty percent of this population that is eight million people live on less than two dollars a day unemployment is that it's an all time high and inflation rates are external mikkel government policies corruption and mismanagement have exacerbated the situation forcing people to organize around local issues and begin  on the cinders in many localities as one activist with it that's a number of occasions people demonstrated in front of the presidential palace and damascus but their concerns were never addressed as a result they have grown disillusioned with bashar al assad himself debate that followed the elections shifted from a discussion of reform to a discussion which mocks the best strategy challenge in the system head on or in dr lee for many the answer lay with the damage this declaration of documents  processes one is that a continuation process between syria and lebanon for this is indeed the only logical way to stop the tribunals and without undermining the processes of international legitimacy and to an internal the conciliation process between the at home and abroad in order to ensure their political survival and the meantime the u s would not shy away from activist supporters a conscious opposition groups and this isn't especially those with established connections to the grassroots and watch and out to the united states know this will committee thank you for the invitation thank you for your courtesy this morning syria you have my opening you have my prepared statement and i would just like to make a couple of key points if i may syria is in the news of course for two reasons one is the nuclear business with north korea the second is a wave of recent press accounts which martin indyk alluded to of syrian israeli diplomatic contacts and these diplomatic contacts have been essentially confirmed by both sides and that is what i would like to focus on in my remarks my main point is that we and israel should not forget that syria has a regional importance i don't think that's likely to be forgotten but syria is an essentially weak country that has made itself a major factor in the arab world by its unholy alliance with iran by a pattern of behavior that is menacing it is given itself average and regional status by this disruptive behavior and this is a strategic problem it goes beyond the middle east peace process it certainly goes beyond the bilateral issue of israeli syrian relations and it goes beyond i think the importance goes beyond that  heights the chairman's opening statement correctly listed a lot of the examples of syrian misbehavior the chairman is absolutely right that in iraq the syrians are actively colluding with iraqi extremists who are killing americans  that may have subsided somewhat but my understanding is that the syrians are cracking down on islam as forces within syria and what we see along the iraqi border may be some fall out from this rather than any kind of syrian strategic decision to stop its mischievous behavior in iraq lebanon has been alluded to by everyone syrian even as we speak is playing the same disruptive role attempting to regain its dominance that it had lost and most importantly the alliance with iran now so the question we and israel need to think about if there were to be a negotiation over the golan heights the question we need to ask ourselves a number of questions what is the effect of such a negotiation on these regional interests that we both have now there are serious arguments or good arguments for eagerly pursuing a syrian israeli negotiation would baraki has been quoted recently as saying well we want to israel wants to pin down stability on the northern front which helps isolate the palestinians had it helps consolidate one part of israel's security while israel turns to other more difficult issues that's a good argument i've heard rabin make the same point fifteen years ago when there was an earlier phase of syrian israeli diplomacy but i have some questions i mean what if they were to be a deal or a negotiation  what does it mean for lebanon on martin mentioned that too is what surance is do we have that syria will not continue to wage war against israel by proxy via lebanon which it has been doing will that be part of discussion what effect will that have on syria's behavior in the region and its will it loosen its ties with iran or not i'm not so sure if i put it in a nutshell the gulf arabs who are our allies with respect to iran are very angry at syria right now is syria is isolated in the arab world and my concern is that one of syria's motives for these peace or overtures with israel is to break free of its isolation complicate our relations with our gulf arab friends which is a strategic cost to us and in fact israel has relations improving relations with another number of the gulf arabs and the question is is this consistent and will it have the strategic benefit of separating syria from iran or will it be a  clever device by syria to break out of its isolation while feeling free to continue its hostile actions in lebanon or iraq or with respect to iran so my bottom line is first of all that the united states and israel need to coordinate closely if there is to be a syrian diplomacy but secondly the united states and israel as they coordinate need to keep the broader regional context in min d iran lebanon iraq and we must not lose sight of what we want syria to do we know what price syria is asking for they want to go on back but we need to keep in mind the price we have a right to demand what we want from syria is a change of behavior on the range of things that the chairman discuss and before we lift a finger on syria's be have i would like some assurance that we're going to get some of the things we want out of syria thank you mr chairman what's the trade what is it what is it that we can reasonably expect do we have a long list of short list a comprehensive list ba or well if you allow me i'm not sure that that's the extent of a tusk in the first place so if we're going to look at what the trade is i think the u circumstances were very different living on was indeed part of the deal syria was in those days in lebanon was exercising some kind of control they've been invited into lebanon  by the united states as a way of preventing the civil war or stopping some from going on there so we had a position of dominance in lebanon and the assumption in those days when we had the last time we had intensive israeli syrian negotiations with american participation was that as part of the israel syria syria would disarm hezbollah in lebanon using its troop presence accepted by all parties involved that the deal would it would involve all of the core law in return for syria ending its conflict with israel normalizing relations with israel israel lebanon peace deal would have been done under syrian auspices now we're in a very different situation today as i said and you said it much more clearly lebanon cannot be part of this deal of the that's what they want is lebanon and the go on what they can get the israelis not just this prime minister but five previous prime minister so i think that's that's the trade that we would need to see that i don't think that it makes sense to add to that requirement that it break it relationship with iraq rather believe that that will be the natural outgrowth of a peace deal between israel and syria under american auspices mr abdul h actually did not hear the word tribunals so i have to say it's it's not the goal and it's it's it's nothing they want the end of the trial be on all this is this is a major major concern and everything they've been doing over the last couple of years have really technological device everything is available in these in the country but those who can afford it less than ten percent or five percent of the population on the other hand the basic footfall have risen by a factor of two hundred and three hundred percent over the last couple of of dynamic which is so you have to resolve its internal problems as well so this issue is a connect the senate situation going on and they try to let me do that let me just is echo is economic unrest in syria a good thing or a bad thing it is both in the sense that it's a good thing because people are beginning to listen to the opposition for that for the first time in a long time and and all opposition is beginning to develop a grassroots support so in that sense it's good because democracy is getting it's getting now a chance and people are beginning to think that we need to challenge the regime and look for alternatives the bad thing about it how about is that mr dr robin i'd like to answer the chairman's question with three points very bluntly one i don't see syria giving up what has been up to now the essence of its whole foreign policy for almost forty years namely playing the spoiler role holding hostages in lebanon if you will holding lebanon as a hostage using iraq as a as leverage against  united states and of course this alliance with iran which gives it leverage over its arab brothers without this foreign policy syria is a weak little country an ordinary very ordinary country and i don't see syria having any interest in giving up this leverage it has second i believe syria's motive now is to use the united states and israel to break out of the isolation which it is now feeling in the arab world as the arab iranian rivalry heats up syria is under pressure from the arabs and this this israeli overture is a way i think to use us to break free of that and to drive a wedge in fact between us and our gulf arab friends and three just the bottom line i am very skeptical about the strategic benefit now of taking the bait and pursuing a go on negotiation so if the current culture question was deal or no deal you would say no deal i think we should be very very cautious and we should have a long list of demands we make on syria before we expose ourselves to the risks that i've described let's say we put together a comprehensive list of what our demands are starting with with everything that everybody has said from ending their relationship with iran to not meddling in the middle east and not running guns in jobbies from iran to iraq they get immunity from prosecution in the tribunals they get a new lease on life and that's what they get i mean now you're giving them lebanon no not lebanon we have given them their political survival inside syria un resolutions and we our position should be we don't have any anything to do with that we don't have any control over that that is something that is judicial process which we will not interfere in and it will have to play itself  i think there's no doubt that the downside here is that the syrians break out of their isolation but i think that he misinterprets the arab concern here the arabs to the saudis are very upset about syria's policies in lebanon but the saudis and the other arab states insisted that we get the syrians to is very similar to ours in order to their interest is to bring the syrians of from the iranian side of the equation to the arab side of the balance of power now they are very realistic about how that can be done but that's their long term objective so i don't see that we're at loggerheads with them here but we do place ourselves at loggerheads with our israeli ally if we are not because they try to break out of their isolation than they do in actually reaching an agreement but what i'm trying to argue is that we have an interest in the process as well the process can enable us to put those kinds of things on the table  us to engage with the syrians in pressing those kinds of issues with an ambassador back there we can press i think more effectively the human rights agenda that are talks about and most importantly of all we can  protect the lebanese independence because the great danger here of our standing back and in the course of isolating syria is that syria will break out of its isolation virus anyway because of the israeli interest in doing this the israelis are really using the turks instead of us to engage with the syrians if the israelis and the syrians go off and make their own deal there is a good chance of lebanon on independence will be sacrificed why because the israelis have a pony in the terms of lebanese presidential politics so  what they care about is hezbollah who's going to disarm hezbollah and solidify the security arrangements on the northern border and in order for that to be achieved if syria is going to deal anything on lebanon but they do have the ability to make a deal over the golan that they do not have a horse in the race these are the lebanon as you have described it does that does not mean that they can give lebanon away but are you suggesting that that a deal with israel and syria should not be made san our participation so that we can leverage in a guarantee for lebanon's independence is that what you're saying that that's correct mr chairman i think just  you have to shut down the palestinian organizations and disarm hezbollah and the syrians will say ok but to do that we have to be able to move into lebanon every note is not to be too encouraging of an independent absent u s assistance agreement between israel and syria they will not be an israeli syrian deal without american involvement so we don't need to be too nervous about this the american the syrians are the ones insisting on our presence because they want to break out of isolation as peter says but the israelis will need  involvement as well because they can't do it go on deal without kind of security assistance and underwriting that the united states only the united states can provide and has provided in every other deal that israel has done with its arab neighbors and the palestinians so we will be in the room if there's a real deal to be done you might know a strong interest and lebanese and do not want to leave that to chance and i say the best way to do that is to make it clear by being in the negotiations we can't we can't we cannot put ourselves in the position of opposing israeli syrian place i thank the committee's indulgence for the chairs overburdening use of the time now mr chairman is very helpful thank you and thank you all for appearing today i'm sorry i didn't have the benefit of your earlier testimony but let me try to catch up here what would it take to leverage a change in serious internal calculus about a primary motive that i've heard you say is its desire to end its isolation we just heard in response to dr rodman's assertion that we should be very cautious enter into entering into negotiations without a clear set of demands or are important outcomes that we'd like to achieve and as we take through those demands it's obviously clearly very complicated and we would be a very heavy lift so what would motivate a change in the internal calculus that would allow syria to end its isolation and become a part of the responsible community of nations and achieve some of the  elements that were just listed  there i'll start i think syria will calculate what the balance of forces is in the region what the pressures are what the incentives are one of the factors not the only factor is is american credibility and american franks i think a big key to that is what the situation is in iraq if we look like we're being driven out of iraq our leverage collapses and and others will see the advantage if we look like we're succeeding in iraq that were does a lot to restore our credibility regionally american credibility is not divisible and i think our position in the whole region depends significantly on that that's just one factor but again it arab pressures on syria are another factor so i think syria will calculate as most countries do you know where it's what the pressures are on it and that's one of the things that makes me nervous i think in the present environment of the last two years i'm not sure the syrians and iranians think they're under a lot of pressure and that's the worst context in which to undertake already the cold wind of of isolation and they're not feeling particularly comfortable in other words i think the calculus has already been affected by our approach  but in terms of the situation in iraq i think the syrians have come to the conclusion that it's in their own interests not to let that situation get out of control they're not going to exert a lot of energy to help us  but where is they wanted us to and facing difficulties because they feared that if we succeeded in iraq we would turn military power on them i think they have come to understand and that it's it doesn't serve their arabs and it creates a market speak to this better than i can but it creates a certain uneasiness that feeds already the indignant diggnation and anger that that he is described  o for that reason i think they would like to find a way to to distance themselves somewhat from the embrace of the iranians and it's very interesting to see the way they have built their relationship with turkey the northern neighbor the very bad relations with turkey part of the way they've tried to break out of the isolation that we've imposed on them is to build this relationship with turkey an ally of the united states an ally of israel but it's sunni as well and it gives them a kind of relationship with the major sunni power to reduce their sense of so how do you affect overall calculus i think i think that by engaging with them now you have the opportunity to say ok we're ready to open the door to you ready to give you a way out of the situation so that they have an alternative but make it very clear the chairman has suggested that there are a whole range of requirements before they can be graduated from their to to having a normal relationship with the united states and you believe the moment is ripe for that type of engagement given a reasonable probability of an outcome that would lead to i would say the moment will come with a new a new administration here which is what the syrians are sensually waiting for and positioning themselves for but yes then i think that there will be an opportunity i think your comments are helpful in trying to because i've always found it a peculiar dynamic because of the reasons you're stating sectarian the sectarian dynamic within the country complicate the fact that i think need to be taken into consideration i think syria's relations with iran at this stage is not that of partnership but that's a fact and i think the iranians have a lot of influence not only to state politics altogether to undermine the regime if it went in and a direction that is undesirable and i stop it for a moment how did that dynamic occur what were the choices that led to that reality now  on and the economic relationships have grown tremendously between the two countries and iran began advising me over the last three years the president of city on a lot of issues related independent to make his decisions but he also maintained this relationship with iran but shot on the other hand is more on the sway of the need to basically and the iranian hardliners and he favors more and i and in a sense have had an edge over the united states over the last two years so for all the talk about this isolation inside that mind really there is a perception that they have actually managed to sort of a some kind of a difference with this more there's an irony in what you're saying in that there's a growing willingness desire to create certain distances from iranian entanglement and yet it is the iranian influence that has allowed for a the united states to become concerned giving the syrians certain degree of leverage in terms of building up perhaps a new relationship with us ally or anywhere it's a very strange relationship and understand what you said correctly can actually and how savvy they are they've actually infiltrated different businesses the security apparatus so it's not exactly now a question of city as simply saying we don't want that the relationship anymore i've made  so that that's the kind of dynamic that's really needs to be taken also on the consideration it is not difficult it's not that easy to think that this is something that the you know the relationship can  be sort of put on a back burner and that all these peace talks off taken place that the iranians will not be aware of the implications for that interest and that they will not actually try to destabilize or the regime or play one one assad against and also in order to get their way in fact this might have just taken place a few weeks ago there are a lot of rumors about the brother in law of the president who was a very important person in the family and he will hold the security in his hands in a sense being sort of fired line and i think all embracing a serious dialogue here as to clearly understand some of the problems difficulties and dilemmas and leading to what we all hope for a more peaceful type of relationship that can build upon something positive and hopeful in the in the middle east  t at the same time there are serious dilemma some difficulties here but i think again the hearing itself clear sends a clear statement that we look forward to potentially opening the door to address some of these internal chairman i want to also add my thanks to you for holding this hearing and to the gentleman here on the panel thank you for being here i want to ask a couple of questions with regard to the syria lebanese relationship and has been clear that syria has resisted efforts to clarify lebanon status refusing to is hard bargaining positioning or is there a real deep seated resistance to knowledge in the reality of lebanese sovereignty and independence was taken away from syria by the imperialist powers british and french after the collapse of the ottoman empire and it's been continuous syrian policy since then not to recognize the independence of lebanon and the way that you've suggested is that there's a historical reason for that there's a strategic reason for that there's an economic reason for that syria views itself as a regional power and and it regards lebanon as it as part of its sphere of influence  d if it had to withdraw its troops essentially because the lebanese people came out into the streets and demanded that they go but ever since then the syrians have to use whatever means necessary and use those words purposely whatever means necessary to  exercise promote their influence in lebanon with an intention to control the situation and we should have no illusion that that they consider that a vital national interest which they will be prepared to spend considerable political and if necessary military fight and this is why i suggested from the very beginning that the only way you can actually manage the situation is if you accept that that it's not simply one piece that you have to have but there has to be a parallel peace track also not simply between and israel but also between syria and lebanon because no one can stop the tribunals and no one ten sort of dictate a normalized relationship and how they should be from from outside the actors on both sides have to accept some kind of a compromise if if that is indeed possible that may not be possible with the sides but we are saying perhaps we should try it before we will make that conclusion but the lebanese are the only one this could be taken further in order to achieve that but the conditionality i put it is the internal situation which is the human rights improvements and the country because the situation is really sizzling everything looks quiet at the  lebannon remains a cloud a big cloud over any potential golan heights negotiation because i think as we discussed earlier it's hard to imagine that israel could get any assurance that syria won't continue to use lebanon on subtle subtly or on sadly as a pressure point on israel even after a go on a potential go on agreement and and it's very hard to imagine dealing with all comprehensively and getting any agreement in the present situation so i'm not sure how you get out of this complexity i wanted to talk about the related issue lebanese political figures if this happens what implications do you think that has do you think siri would cooperate do you think the international community we will have to deal with the situation so this is this is the element of predictability here that that that really no one can do anything about thank you is syria capable of divorcing itself from hi promoting syria's influence in lebanon and more importantly i think at that time keeping the pressure on israel via lebanon to negotiate the go a lot syrians have have never wanted reality and that's because the balance of military power has always been in israel's favor and the syrians especially after egypt made peace with israel had after saddam hussein's military capability was significantly reduced syrians didn't have a military option so they weren't prepared to fight that remains true to this day but they were using hezbollah against the israeli army which was in southern  consequence hezbollah has become far more important both for maintaining syria's influence in lebanon since it's not there it's his b calculations in particular the military calculus because the security arrangements would would and the peace commitments themselves would take away the concern that israel might use military force against syria if the desire to control the situation in lebanon would make hezbollah continually continuously important to syria especially if as part of the syria would require u s stewardship it would seem to me that part of the ask on the part of the israelis for the return of  would be the disappearance of his bill from the syrian agenda and the assist the insistence of the syrians that hezbollah no longer share not the lack of support of hezbollah accrued to the benefit of lebanon and reduce syria's ability to exert influence and control in lebanon and therefore why would it accept the deal that you say and i think you're right that this this is a complicating factor i don't think it's a deal breaker  its military capabilities to promote its political influence in beirut it has what other particular advantage in the sense that it represents the shia community which is by now the largest community in lebanon but what i'm trying to say is that i could imagine a peace deal between israel that would nevertheless result in hezbollah retaining considerable influence in lebanese politics which would still play to the advantage of syria for syria to maintain its influence in lebanon via hezbollah there is a political dimension which which is already becoming more important and which could then be the  most important that they would promote their relationship dr robin can you divorce t not sure what is realistic to expect even with the best of goodwill on both sides over the goal line i'm not sure how you realistically give israel some assurance that lebanon won't be used as a syria for its own national or ideological reasons can separate itself from hi i think again in terms of the principles here the disarming of hezbollah should be a lebanese issue the  syrian issue because coming in through syrian territory so as part of israel's syrian deal there should be an end to that process of  but and that's required by un resolutions and that would necessarily be part of the israeli syrian deal because of the threat that hezbollah poses to israel's northern communities violen if if the pipeline to hezbollah was cut the disarming of hezbollah would be easier than in circumstances where it continues to enjoy that support from syria and of course from iraq me to ask about a more general question then maybe we've been discussing so far and that is how do you how you assist a group with terrorist backgrounds and terrorist tendencies and terrors expertise in its transformation if possible to a reasonable participant in a democratic process so in northern collective collection of people wisely got the other part to become part of a reasonable discussion and a democratic system comes to mind in that way and perhaps has some similar kind of possibilities in the future of isolating out the the the terror elements the unhelpful folks  but capturing the passion with which the political side and how if that if that's possible if that's a desirable goal how would the united states assist in that effort to have any much they're on election they won the election so they know they can do both things they can do the military struggle and they can do the politics so they already have the political savvy what they don't have is the vision or the will  r what they don't see is that they have achieved what they wanted from the from from the from the military aspect of their operations if they can come to the point where they can see ok we've achieved what you wanted from the minute operations then claim that we have not liberated all of the occupied lands by israel yet but if there was a peace between the three sides lebanon syria and israel then that claim would be completely meaningless and that if there is a find agreement side of that coin is that when we promote elections as the bush administration has done in this part of the world as a way of promoting democracy we need to be very clear about one democratic principle that unfortunately the bush administration has as ignored and it goes to the heart of  question the principle is that there has to be a monopoly of force in the hands of the elected government if if  terrorist organizations with terrorist cartridges and militias are allowed to compete in elections then they enter the political process with their military capabilities intact and that has a devastating impact on the ability of the government to actually control its territory we saw it in iraq we exactly that things happen the problems we face in iraq today are all about militias that have political parties that are in the government we saw i disarm according to those council resolutions and as a result hezbollah has moved into the political process with its military capability to act can provoke a war with israel and take the government of lebanon into a war with israel that it didn't even deliberate about and paralyze the lebanese political system and we sort of again with hamas where we insisted on election even though i was a palestinian authority and the government of israel thought it was a bad idea we insisted on it we did not insist that hamas decide if it wanted to run in the elections and it took power with its militia or intact and then used its militia to take to to launch a p against the palestinian leadership in gaza so that's point number one in terms of answering the question is what we have to do is insist that democratic principle number two is that there has to be a the will on the part of the leadership of these organizations as it was insane to give up the route of violence and to pursue their objectives by political means we've allowed them to do both and so number one we've got to change our steps but they've got to be prepared to renounce violence which hezbollah has not yet willing to do and the third thing is a process that that takes place within these organizations that that is is in a sense inevitable if they actually take government that they do have to rule now you know hamas has taken control by force of gaza but it in which case it's going to have to have a cease fire with israel and get the passages open and that process in itself has a potential if the other factor to move them from from violence to politics but the most important thing is we cannot allow them to continue violence and politics i agree with what martin said about elections but i would emphasize question that we're a million miles away from demonstrating the futility of the military option i mean they think they won the war a couple of years ago and they're arming themselves to the teeth for the next go around so i mean we and i mean the good news in lebanon is that there are a lot of other political forces in lebanon on that are very courageously resisting the blackmail pressure and so on and that but i think without a change in the balance of forces military balance is going to be a problem i mean they think they're on a roll and if i were in their shoes i wouldn't be making a whole lot of concessions they have a record a track record of living up to the to to the requirements of the deal once the deal is but you can talk to henry kissinger or james part of it is because the syrians like the process they get something out of the process itself which is the recognition the finger on is playing a weekend in terms of their resources their capabilities this is the way to put themselves on a par with the other regional powers and so that's that's why the process itself has advantages to that secondly i think a better relationship with negotiations with israel the bilateral relationship between the united states and syria really never went anywhere despite their desire to see an improvement in the relationship and our willingness to  go down that road there was one huge rock in the road which they were never willing to remove and that was their sponsorship of terrorist organizations and i why would they want to maintain those relationships and yet they were never prepared to act against them and that i think is because the syrians have this self image are the supporter of national liberation movements the opponents of occupation whether it be israeli or american and and that is an important part of their identity and their ability to promote themselves both within syria and syria in the arab world it's served both purposes  relationship with iran but we've already dealt with that as allow the constraining influence on the ability to have a normal relationship with the united states will try to dif this not want to do anything to jeopardize the fun chances of of reaching all succeeding him in power and a lot of the focus was on that's really and i think everything else was filtered through this  prism and this is sort of an important issue to note and this is why it's so difficult for any kind of engagement tool to be successful with the assads you can present them and then and as martin said with the best case scenario of everything and yet they will still drag their resources and strength would warrant it's what got them soviet weapons for many years and even now russian weapons i mean and their ability to intimidate their arab brothers there  mean it's hard to imagine giving all that up and then becoming a very ordinary little country even with the golan heights should we be drawing red lines in the sand  and announce what consequences might be of crossing those lines or is that is that too dangerous a proposition especially if there are no consequences and if it was appropriate to do that what would those red lines  prone to miscalculation than than his father but they do calculate the balance of power in very in my computer and they have a real sense of how far they can go sometimes t stand nuclear reactor and the israelis took care of that but the israelis were very careful not to embarrass the syrians and have been very careful to signal the syrians that they're not interested in a conflict with syria and the israeli syrian understanding of red lines is i think developed in the last couple of years in the in a quite sophisticated way the the answer is no because the israelis did not expose them and the israelis are actually very concerned that this briefing today that appeared in the in the newspapers this morning will cause  the syrians to feel embarrassed and the israelis are very concerned that this is going to to lead to increased tension i suspect that's part of the reason why why you have the leaking of  of the story that the israeli prime minister has offered to give up the golan heights because that's a way if the golan heights are on the table through negotiations why do we need to respond to a syria n and israeli attack would you think more and more concerned that the syrians would be embarrassed or more pleased that the iranians would be forewarned exposing it whereas what's happening in these stories the press stories today is stories about israeli you know israeli intelligence that has been provided to the united states and the administration has clearly made a decision to leak this and was so determined to do so that they couldn't trust congress to do it after our briefing  what is what is the benefit to the administration of doing this now discussion going on within the administration about what is required of the north koreans in terms of full disclosure and whether they can accept a statement from the north koreans which is we didn't do it but we'll never do it again as opposed to coming clean on what they actually did and so that's my speculation is that those who are in that the north koreans come clean with taking mechanism of the neo cons within the administration which do not want to see the administration moving forward with north korea on something that might be reasonable or clinton esque i wish that were the case i think this is just the intelligence community i think it's just a sort of reflex action to put the stuff out and the intelligence community is not responsive to political pressures on this certainly you would not you would not say that they are not politically motivated but i don't think the intelligence community shares the skepticism about the north korean negotiation and that's what's puzzling to me i 'm very skeptical of the north korean negotiations and but i i suspect the people leaking it are not of that strike so i find it puzzling and my speculation is that this may have more innocent motives you know and it just so i it may be too much to read some devious motivation in there because i think the people responsible the leaking are not the kind of people who would be opposed to the  north korean negotiation i'm not i'm not sure there's anybody left in the government that is opposed to this north korea negotiation i think they have secret cel i'm not commenting on that but just to finish on your red lines question i think you talk about israeli syrian red lines but you know i think that that we have tried very hard to put down a red line on the lebanese syrian border and to tell the syrians you have no business interfering in lebanon and we want to accept it what is it what does it mean when we say we will not accept i've heard that so much from the from the administration when they say this is not acceptable yeah there are no there are no consequences they're really saying this is not acceptable but we don't know what to do about it well there are consequences tussle going on a conflict going on between the united states saudi arabia and and more broadly the u n on the one side and  syrians the iranians hezbollah on the other for the future of lebanon and so the red line has not yet been established or accepted  but i think you can understand the that's what's going on here and the syrians i mean this is the strange situation where the syrians actually should have been satisfied and the syrians have blocked that and i don't think there's any do they really making any attempt to hide the fact that they they are blocking that because number one i think they felt because this has the effect of paralyzing lebanese politics and as long as there's no president it becomes very difficult for the political system to function there and of course we're doing everything we can to get the syrians to go along with the the appointment of what effect would be a president president so in that respect i don't think the red lines if  it's not it's i don't think it's fair to say that it's accurate to say that there's been no consequences for syria the international community in particular united states france and saudi arabia have tried to impose a price on syria but the syrians have a willingness to absorb the costs partly because they're not that great and partly because they have an intense interest diplomatic relations will be based on knowing that you are dealing with the regime that is trying to at least maintain a semblance of legitimacy with its own people by not imprisoning  human rights activists and opponents and dissidents and this is really what what i'm hoping to do to achieve and what what my colleagues tomorrow will be speaking here in the conference are hoping to achieve is a message that human rights should be outlined in the case of city that this is and should be out of line you know this is somewhat naive or idealistic but we are trying to say that the situation in syria has grown so bad  disregard that not doing something about it is going to make it grow worse to an extent what the situation could actually and blow it up to violence and and we don't wan of the speakers out of former chairman lantos and such as several that i've made myself to to damascus were basically to deliver strong messages which which included the message of human rights and  we thank you especially mr of hama to injecting that into today's discussion dr robin did you want to add something you asked about red lines i think the missing ingredient has always been effective pressures on syria i remember the lebanon diplomacy twenty five years ago we were looking around what pressure points that we have on syria and we never have enough to really impose our will and right now after that the let the hezbollah war of two thousand and six even israel which has the most leverage on syria is in the mix position as far as having leverage i mean the balance of forces is what's key here and that we have strength and and weaknesses and that that will determine the outcome of negotiations i agree with you about the engagement or the  i mean i can testify again from personal experience i was in a high level delegation in two thousand and four with bill burns of the state department we went to meet with president assad to talk about iraq what they were doing in iraq and what they are doing in lebanon on so on and we delivered very what i thought were very ferocious talking points but the syrians are masters of spin and the syrians use the fact of these visits as evidence they say ah the america we have excellent relations with the americans look at all these high level visit so it doesn't matter doesn't matter how blunt you are in conversation they'll publicize it and spin it as you know showing that they're they're free of pressure and what we may think is a is a way of ratcheting up pressures by tough delivering a tough message they will spin it into a form of relief from pressure so that's again the balance of forces about it is going to convey a message more effectively than talking points but if i might just follow up on that i actually have a written prepared question that talks to that testimony you noted were cleared by the president himself with the syrian what mattered was the high level delegation the question is what was the follow up when the syrians ignored your tough talking points was the problem the high level visit or the lack of consequences of the damascus feeling failing to take heed the warnings of  there was no there really was no or else i mean don rumsfeld always used to say what's the or else and there wasn't any and the syrians figured this out now ironically some of it was some fratricide among different objectives when the the un special tribunal was created i think that inhibited us we were ratcheting up american sanctions on syria and but for a couple of years we held back thinking there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow there would be international sanctions as a result of this investigation and therefore we didn't want to do anything to screw that up so we held back and so we were paralyzed for a few years by inhibition now i'm glad to see that in the last few months i think the administration has resumed the process of ratcheting up economic sanctions on syria because the u n process even though we support it  in its progress but i think that's always been the problem and you put your finger on it what's the follow up what's the or else what's the price and that's been the missing ingredient not engagement i mean the missing ingredient is not that we haven't had enough dialogue or not that we haven't talked to them enough and it's pressures  you know i have a lot of sympathy for my approach as a way of getting human rights on to the agenda that this be the precondition for sending our best back but the purpose of having an ambassador there is precisely to deliver these kinds of of messages to maintain relationships with with syria and who are advocating for human rights and to report the conditions but it's a real i will tell you mr jenner is a real problem in iraq we haven't had any kind of official relations with iran for more than three decades and we don't have a feel for what's a direct feel for what's going on  there and if we don't have a good feel for it how can we develop an effective policy i guess we have to have an ambassador who could clear his calendar for four hundred forty four days