Common sense about Syria is finally creeping into…

Common sense about Syria is finally creeping into some American editorials.

Unlike the infantile New York Times and the cold, calculating, deal-making Brits, Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post gets it:

Those who complain that there is a lack of communication between the Bush administration and the Assad regime are not paying attention. By local rules, a well-timed murder such as the gunning down of Pierre Gemayel in Beirut last week is more effective in sending a message than a diplomatic demarche.

[..]

The killing of Gemayel, a member of the anti-Syrian coalition headed by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, bears the hallmarks of a Syrian “initiative” to block the U.N. effort. And the murder came as Syria was reestablishing diplomatic relations with Iraq after 24 years of estrangement. This translation of Syrian actions quickly made its way through the Middle East: “You want help in Iraq? It will cost you Lebanon. For starters.” That is realpolitik and real communication, Assad-style.

That is in any event the context in which any new U.S. move to talk to Syria and to Syria’s ally, Iran, will be seen. Washington must avoid giving the impression that it is willing to allow Syria to regain hegemony over Lebanon in return for smoothing the U.S. path in Iraq.

[..]

But any “realistic” deal that undermines Lebanon’s hard-won freedom from Syrian control and protects murderers in Damascus would quickly become a fool’s bargain. This is a clear case, as the U.N. involvement to strengthen Lebanon’s sovereignty over all its frontiers demonstrates, where doing the moral thing is also the realistic thing.