Syria

Guardian (06/04) quotes Steve Clemons on Hillary Clinton's potential Senate Majority Leader ambitions.
The Moderate Voice (06/03) cites Daniel Levy on the Gaza Strip's growing international isolation.
LA Times (05/31) quotes Jeffrey Lewis on Syria's nuclear secrecy.
New York Times (05/30) mentions Peter Bergen in a discussion of the issue of Iranian containment.

Weekly Standard (6/1) discussed Peter Bergen's views on extreme and moderate Islam.
Wall Street Journal (5/31) seeks Daniel Levy's expert opinion on Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
World Politics Review (5/30) Parag Khanna critiques America's current Middle East Policy
Haaretz (5/30) Daniel Levy writes about the need for a unified Palestinian national movement.
TPM Cafe (5/29) William Hartung examines the lack of financial accountability in the Pentagon.

Wired Magazine (04/28) cites Jeffrey Lewis' research on the Syrian Nuclear Program
The Week Daily (04/25) quotes Steve Clemons on the implications of Syria's Nuclear Program
The New Republic (04/25) responds to Steve Clemons' debate against a Beijing Boycott

In debates surrounding U.S.-Israeli relations, the role of certain pro-Israel political action committees has been heavily contested. While for some they represent the true interests of both America and Israel, New America's Daniel Levy is skeptical and instead thinks their agenda leaves both countries worse off. In an April 16th Huffington Post article, he announced J Street, a new political action committee for Americans who think to America's best interests are served by a just, negotiated two-state solution and an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The greater Middle East contains only six percent of the world's population but can keep the United States distracted from the bigger strategic issues: making globalization, the rise of Asia, and the American economy stable and sustainable, for instance. Writing in the American Prospect, Daniel Levy lays out a regional to-do list for the next president of the United States.

By Daniel Levy, New America Foundation

The American Prospect | April 2008

Listen carefully when a new president is inaugurated next January for the sigh of relief coming from most of those Middle Easterners whom President Bush embraced as allies. Conversely, Bush’s rivals in the region are likely to tune in to the occasion in a disgruntled mood. For them the Bush years have been good for business. The menu of grievances on which they’ve fed has become a veritable feast. Opposition to American designs in the region -- deployed with different emphases and with different goals by al-Qaeda, Iran, Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah, to name but a few -- has been an easy sell and has won countless new adherents.

The Bush administration is ratcheting up sanctions on the government of Syria. Steve Clemons comments:

GEORGE W. Bush certainly seems like he likes to strangle things. He's been trying to strangle Cuba and Cuban-American families with tightened restrictions on family-related travel to emphasize how much every President of the United States since Eisenhower has tried (and failed) to undermine Fidel Castro's government.

Now, Bush yesterday started to strangle Syria more tightly. Arguing that Syria is not doing enough to stop the movement of terrorists between Iraq and Syria, Bush issued an Executive Order increasing the number of Syrian officials whose financial assets can be held.

So -- someone on the press beat with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, ask these two presidential hopefuls if they agree with the President's action against Syria or not? If so, why? If not, what reasons would they as President use to undo our counter this action.

I'll give you my answer. Bush's move is reckless -- and threatens to add further stress to a region that is wondering whether Bush's initiative to achieve some kind of Israel/Palestine deal is real or contrived.