The Middle East is Pelosi's playground

Last week, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Damascus. Pelosi presented herself as bringing a message of peace from Jerusalem - a message that never was.

She also concluded from her talks with Bashar Assad that the Syrian president is willing to "resume the peace process" - a controversial conclusion at best. So much so that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert felt obligated to publish a quick clarification regarding the visit: There is no change in Israeli policy. And here is one thing to be learned from the short and rather embarrassing incident: For the next two years, Israel, like other countries in the Middle East, will be a pawn on Pelosi's game board.

Pelosi, they say in Washington, didn't like the Israeli clarification. It made her look slightly ridiculous, like a rookie in foreign policy. Upon her return to the U.S. it became evident that her attempt to conduct independent foreign policy for Congress' Democratic majority was not appreciated from wall to wall. The administration, predictably, attacked her, but not just the administration.

"Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish," writes the Washington Post in a scathing editorial. The New York Times editorial, however, was more sympathetic: "Such Congressional visits can serve the useful purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administration's failed policies."

The thing is, Pelosi is not setting independent foreign policy, but domestic policy. Feet in Damascus, head in New Hampshire. It was not Israel's interest nor Syria's that guided her, but the good of the Democratic party.

This is not the first time that a senior legislator has decided to sting the administration with a high-ranking visit to a hostile capital. This is also not the first time Israel has been used to rack up points in a domestic American struggle.

However, in the race for 2008, the risk to Israel is increasing. The Middle East is at the center of the American agenda. Every detail in U.S. policy regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Hamas, radical Islam and terror affects Israel directly. Every detail affecting that policy is at the center of a profound debate, at least on the rhetorical level.

This development will mandate Israel's extreme caution in talks with the administration and Congress. Standing Israeli policy - trying to remain in the American political middle ground - will be more complicated than ever this year. Olmert knew this, but nonetheless decided to present an explicit Israeli policy regarding Iraq identical to that of Bush in a speech to AIPAC. Not two weeks passed and he added a sting to Pelosi in an announcement released by his office.

Was the sting necessary? Politically, the justification is clear. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in her Washington visit a month ago said that at this point she sees no reason to change policy on Syria. That is one issue on which she and Olmert agree. If there were any concern that Pelosi would create momentum that would put pressure on Israel, the premier sought to quash it in the bud.

But what may not have been sufficiently considered is the price of that quashing: Israel's increasing identification with the policies of the Bush administration, which is not particularly popular with the American public, and increasing nervousness on the part of Democratic legislators who won't take kindly to exaggerated Israeli interference in their affairs. Therefore, even if Olmert is correct in his understanding of Israel's political interest, it is unlikely his actions reflect careful consideration of American political sensitivity. He would have done better to hold his tongue. From now until November 2008, it's not a good idea to get on the seesaw in Pelosi's playground.