them keep the Golan Heights.

Neither will have any appetite for any kind of disagreement with Israel over matters considered to be of concern to Israel and its borders.

The US and Israel will continue to disagree over ISIS and regional issues, but that's another story.

Or at least, I think so. Whether anyone else would want to vigorously contest the matter, I'm not so sure about. Lunacy is more common than sober judgement in the halls of power any direction you look from there.

The Golan is one of those places where a variety of interests come together and clash vigorously, While it was sparsely populated and unimportant that did not matter much. If it gains prominence as a tourist and oil and gas hub, unsavorly interests could be attracted to it. What, if any, sort of government will eventually come into power in the region in Syria next door to it is important and unpredictable, too.

On the other hand, everybody is pretty busy, you know, bigger things on their minds, so in the short run, it won't get much attention, like the OP says.

in Syria--rather it's a collection of warring satrapies. So, Israel can make its move without much opposition.

But, they'll be responsible for defending it.

And the area is awash in weapons, so it could get "interesting", whereas before it was "quiet".

that the Obama administration has essentially acquiesced in the Soviet desire to have an Assad Syria survive. If Syria were to break up post Assad (which is what would happen), then you could make a much stronger case for Israel holding on to the Golan. However, if Assad survives (which he likely will), and then were to offer real peace with Israel, then how could Israel justify holding on to the Heights? And if they did, what could Trump or Clinton say in support of that? Obviously, we're still a long way from that happening, but things are moving in that direction. Once the civil war is over, Assad is going to need money and jobs to rebuild the country. How far down the peace road would Assad go for petro-wealth?

1) Soviet?

2) it's difficult to see Assad surviving absent partition--there is no way he and his goons are going to be given authority over the entire country again. That's a complete non-starter for those holding territory beyond the reach of Damascus.


3) Only way Israel doesn't grab Golan is if the US/Russian peace plan works and puts in place a consensus national government with buy in from all ethnic groups/regions. So, safe to bet Israel grabs Golan.

1. Of course Russian. Force of habit.

2. I don't see Syria splitting with Assad in power. The whole point of keeping him in power is to maintain a united Syria, and the whole point of the "cease fire" is to make sure he stays (since you would have to defeat his forces in war to get rid of him). If there is a strong central government, then between Russian and Iranian support they will destroy ISIS, and Assad reclaims the country by force. The opposition won't stand a chance without outside support, and they won't get any now.

3. You are assuming that Assad can't assert control over the whole of Syria. I wouldn't bet on that. It's much more likely that if there is a post war Syria that it will be led by Assad or by a successor military officer.

No idea, but it would seem that if they wanted to have an opinion, both Bibi and Assad would have to pay attention. Assad in particular, is not in a position to argue, and Putin is not patient with disobedient minions from what I've seen.

Iran might well have views about what to do in that area too.

It just reeks of trouble.

I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't see Assad giving up, but he may not live long enough, and I don't see him making peace with Israel or Israel wanting to make peace with him at the moment, so it will all just be ignored, like a lot of things are these days.

That means they want a unified Syria under the control of their ally. Do they care if that leader is
Assad? Maybe, but I suspect they would accept some general from the Assad clique. One thing is pretty certain. The Alawite rulers are not going to step aside. They can't risk what would be done to their civilian population by the vengeful rebels. Some nominal power sharing maybe, but I wouldn't expect much more than that. So the likely result is a return to an Alawite ruled unified Syria. Yes, that means that the war was a colossal waste.

Iran is Assad's ally as well. They are natural partners against ISIS, and why shouldn't the West let them take out that enemy with Russian help? Aside from the Russians insinuating themselves back into a major position in the middle east of course. But the West would rather make money and let someone else do the fighting.

Will the Russians then pressure the Syrian government to accept a peace deal in return for the Golan? Maybe. The Soviet policy was to frustrate peace and keep the area on at least a low level boil in order to frustrate US goals in the region. However, Russia is not the Soviet Union, the area impacts southern Russia, and with the US abandoning some of its leadership role in the middle east, it may be that what Putin wants is stability and a place at the table. And if Syria offers a real peace agreement in exchange for the Golan, the Israelis would have a substantial problem if they said no.

I believe that is why Kerry is in Moscow right now, to try to find out.

I have to say that I agree that if the USA and Russia collaborate to force Bibi and Assad to accept such a deal, it will be "costly" to resist. It might be a big enough carrot and a big enough stick.

And I think that is what Putin wants, to not have to get too involved, to settle things down, to be the peacemaker, but for a suitable price.