Them 2 – U.S. 1

On the evidence of the past week, struggling U.S. allies can make progress in direct relationship to the distance they put between themselves and the State Department. Exhibit A is Lebanon's power-sharing deal with Hezbollah. Exhibit B is Israel's negotiations with Syria. And the final exhibit, the one at the furthest remove from State's tender mercies, is Iraq, where General David Petraeus just announced that the past week saw the lowest number of security incidents in more than four years.

Commenting Wednesday on the news of the talks between the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and unnamed Syrian counterparts, State Department Assistant Secretary C. David Welch saw reason for hope: "We think the expansion of the circle of peace would be a good thing. And, of course, it would be very, very helpful if that included an agreement with Syria."

Just as Israel was attempting to draw Syria into this "circle of peace," Syrian client Hezbollah was sinking its claws deeper into the government of Lebanon. Earlier this month, Hezbollah set off the worst round of killing in Lebanon since the end of the civil war in 1990. Now Lebanon's weak government has given the Hezbollah-controlled opposition enough cabinet seats to veto any policy it opposes.

Of this bad deal, State's Mr. Welch said it is "not a perfect solution, but it is much better than the alternatives." The alternatives are the military operations Hezbollah undertakes against Lebanon's government or Israel. The primary enabler of Hezbollah is Syria, long a conduit for the group's arms and financing. It is difficult to read these events as anything other than symptoms of weakness in two U.S. allies, Israel and Lebanon, and gains for Hezbollah, Syria and of course their main patron, Iran.

The negotiations between Israel and Syria ostensibly involve Israel withdrawing from the Golan Heights. Israelis can calculate their own national interests, but even in Israel this initiative is being widely interpreted as an effort by the scandal-plagued Prime Minister Olmert to deflect attention from his legal problems. Whatever the purpose, the talks inevitably raise the public standing of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad at a time when he is extending his influence over our Lebanese allies.

Meanwhile, the "failure" in Iraq makes steady, substantive progress. In remarks yesterday to the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus noted that much of the reduction in violence in Iraq is due to "recent operations" in Basra, Mosul and Sadr City. Those operations have succeeded in no small part from the increasingly positive performance of the Iraqi army. In Baghdad's Sadr City this week, the Iraqi troops deployed through its neighborhoods without direct support from U.S. forces. Residents living in the grip of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militias openly welcomed the Iraqi troops, as long-closed businesses reopened.

Earlier this month, a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation moved into Mosul. This isn't just another village but a city of some two million residents. Located in northern Iraq (close to Syria), it has long been a stronghold of al Qaeda in Iraq. Virtually the entire city has been brought under control by the coalition forces, and violent incidents are down dramatically the past month.

The significance of these countervailing trends should be apparent. In Iraq since the onset of the surge, U.S. policy has been clear and consistent. By contrast, U.S. policy toward Syria has been impossible to discern. Obviously the two examples are not alike. Iraq is a U.S. military operation, while the rest of the region falls under the portfolio of State's diplomats. But absent the will to make Syria pay a price for its destructive mischief, a U.S. policy vacuum exists. It's no surprise the Syrians are taking advantage of it.

Everything now becomes grist for the U.S. presidential election, and these events offer opportunities for both campaigns. The fecklessness of U.S. policy toward Syria and Lebanon offers John McCain a chance to distinguish his policies from the Bush presidency. The same holds for Barack Obama, though it will be interesting to see if Mr. McCain lets him make it to November denying the reality of the potentially huge achievement in Iraq and its implication for the region.

All these places – Iraq, Iran, Syria and Israel – have been routine fodder for campaign rhetoric over the past year. The winners and losers this week make clear that outcomes serving American interests depend crucially on the quality of leadership, not least from the U.S. President.