The Case Against Unilateral Concessions

Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thesis: Unilateral concessions are counter-productive.

On February 3rd, 2010, the BBC reported:

The US government has asked Syria to approve its nomination for a new ambassador in Damascus [...] The request marks a notable milestone in the re-establishment of official relations between the two countries.


On February 20th, the AP:

The United States has lifted an advisory that warned American travelers about security concerns in Syria, officials said Saturday, as Washington tries to thaw relations with the Syrians, who are seen as crucial to peace in the region. Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, welcomed the decision and said "both sides will start taking practical steps" to improve relations.


On February 24th, the AFP:

The US asked that Syria distance itself from Iran, claiming that the tight relations between the two countries causes problems in the entire region [...] Clinton called on Syria to "begin to move away from the relationship with Iran" and to stop backing Hezbollah.

On February 26th, The Washington Post:

The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East "without Zionists," combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region's defining alliances [...] But Assad and Ahmadinejad on Thursday emphasized that their countries' relationship had deepened with the signing of an agreement waiving visa restrictions for travel.

And on February 27th, Iran's Tehran Times boasted:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah held a meeting in Damascus on Thursday to discuss regional issues.

Case and point.