The political quarreling over President Obama’s appointment of Robert Ford as U.S. Ambassador to Syria distracts from the original reason for the decision. Rather than focus on the process of Ford’s appointment, the debate should center on the strategic realities that make it crucial for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

The U.S. needs an ambassador in Damascus because Syrian cooperation is essential to achieve three key U.S. goals in the region: countering the rising threat of Iran, diminishing Hezbollah’s power and influence, and achieving Arab-Israeli peace. Petty procedural concerns should be superseded by these core strategic objectives.

Presidents of both parties have long used recess appointments to advance nominations that would have difficulty getting consent from the Senate. President Bush famously employed the tactic in 2005 to install John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN—one of the most controversial figures to ever represent the U.S. in that body.

In both cases, Presidents Bush and Obama made their appointments with very clear intentions. Ambassador Bolton was directed to pursue aggressive reforms at the UN, and Ambassador Ford will play an important role in attempting to alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

Iran’s growing influence has been a top security concern of the U.S. and its regional allies for decades, but in recent years Iran’s power has steadily increased. In many respects the 2003 invasion of Iraq accelerated this trend. The 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is also attributed to the direction of Iran’s influence. MORE