The following is a blog I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council. The original is available here on their website.
Although the last Syrian troops left Lebanon on April 26, 2005, Syria still has countless horses in the Lebanese race. The Syrian regime - along with Iran - supports Hezbollah and Amal, and it backs various secular Sunni groups, in addition to the largely Christian Free Patriotic Movement headed by General Michel Aoun. Along with the Syrian Ba’ath Party, Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and the Nasserite Popular Movement, these groups form the nucleus of Lebanon’s March 8 coalition.
Together, they have posed a serious challenge to the pro-Western, anti-Syrian March 14 coalition. That group includes the Future Movement headed by Sa’ad Hariri, the son and political heir of the slain nationalist politician Rafiq Hariri; Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party; the Democratic Gathering Bloc, and; Samir Ja’ja’s Lebanese Forces.
Adding to this unstable political mix are over 400,000 Palestinians confined to refugee camps throughout Lebanon, who remain largely outside of state authority. There are currently some 15 active Palestinian factions, which range politically from the Marxist far left to the Islamist and jihadist far right - many of whom operate with the support and encouragement of Damascus.

With the expiration of the six-month lull in Hamas rocket fire into Israel, the IDF is set to invade Gaza and attack Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure. There are several reasons for the timing of Israel’s operation. Firstly, many in Israel’s security establishment never signed on to the purpose of the cease-fire to begin with. It merely granted Hamas a respite from Israeli attacks while giving them the opportunity rearm and better train themselves. For two years, since Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007, they have been working hard to develop their military power with Iranian assistance using Hizballah as a model. The new rockets they have smuggled in pieces through tunnels from Egypt now have the capacity to strike the outskirts Beersheba. Since more fighting is inevitable given Hamas’s pledge to destroy the Jewish state, it is better to attack when they have fewer weapons at their disposal. A ceasefire only works in Hamas’s favor.
As the new president-elect begins to weigh the carrots and sticks he can employ when dealing with the Middle East, he will run into the question of how to handle Syria. Bashar al-Asad was the first to reach out with a telegram to Mr. Obama on November 7 that “expressed hope for constructive dialogue so that the difficulties can be overcome which have hampered the advance of peace, stability and progress in the Middle East.”
“Terrorist aggression” is what Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mu’allim termed the U.S. raid into Syria that either captured or killed Abu Ghadiya. The daylight attack took place five miles inside Syria in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal. Syrian television claimed nine people were killed and 14 were wounded in the operation. A native of Mosul, Iraq, the 32-year old Ghadiya has been in charge of al-Qaeda’s extensive Syria network since 2005, when the organization declared an Islamic Emirate in Al Qaim along the Iraqi border. In February, U.S. intelligence sources named Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih (a.k.a. Abu Ghadiya) as al-Qaeda in Iraq’s top operative in Syria, tasked with funneling foreign fighters, weapons, and cash into Iraq.
Sometimes the Fatwas (religious decrees) issued in the Middle East approach the surreal.
Israel faces several challenges today including a stalled peace process with an increasing worldwide call for a bi-national state solution; Iran’s nuclear program; and the growing social divide in Israeli society between religious and secular Jews. A two-state solution should remain the only acceptable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the calls for one state for Jews and Palestinians alike will continue to gather steam in the future. Given the current demographic situation and problems in Israeli society, maintaining the status quo does not benefit Israel.
By listening to the presidential campaign rhetoric or watching the nightly news, one would not guess that the reality on the ground in Iraq is changing.
The war on terror may never be the same.
What links together the conflicts in the Middle East? Isn't it, afterall, possible to feel especially fascinated by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, feel obligated to resolve it, believe that it should not be difficult to solve given the public parameters, and not believe it is linked to all other conflicts in the Middle East?
For some reason when the West discusses the Middle East all conflicts are seen as linked together so that the resolution of one will ease the prospects for reconciliation for another. Conversely, one conflict that remains unresolved inhibits the solution of another. This thinking gave birth to the 1990s idea of "Comprehensive Peace." That is an all-encompassing peace that satisfies all parties.