In March of 2003, the Bush Administration did not foresee the consequences of the Pandora’s Box they would open after invading Iraq to oust former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Three and a half years later, with billions of dollars spent on the war including almost 2900 American soldiers dead (and counting), the debate today now centers on how the policy in Iraq will change. With voters sweeping Democratic candidates into Congress, this means finding an effective exit strategy, which the Bush Administration never really conceived from the outset of the war.
With the Democrats taking control in January, President Bush is now forced to rethink his policy on Iraq. It has come to no surprise that he spoke with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former Republican Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton to come up with this new policy. While the recommendations of the ISG have not yet been disclosed, the press reports the possibility of brining in Iraq’s neighbors (including Iran) to stabilize the worsening condition in Iraq and perhaps a realistic exit strategy for the US.
This strategy brings major points of contention with our already sour relations with Iran and Syria, the two countries that border Iraq. Helen Cobban of the Christian Science Monitor laid out an interesting proposal on how the US should precede that involves brining in three parties: Iran, the UN, and Iraq’s neighbors. Read her post here.
Ms. Cobban cites Iran’s importance in the process because of its close Shia-ties with the present Iraqi government as well as its close supply lines to Iraq. The UN, she argues, would do three things: 1) provide international legitimacy, 2) help repair the fractured Iraqi government and 3) broker international agreement in the transition of security forces in Iraq. Finally, Ms. Cobban argues that involving other Mid-East countries would alleviate tensions in the region: “These states (including Syria) will also need to have a meaningful behind-the-scenes role in being a contact group, or whatever, for the transition of power inside Iraq, where they have their own strong interests, fears, and concerns.”
While Ms. Cobban calls her plan “realistic” differentiating it with the current Bush policy, which she criticizes as “ideological,” the problem with her proposal is that it is actually more wishful thinking.
Here are some points of contention I find with Ms. Cobban’s proposal:
1) While Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign secretary cites Iran’s nuclear issue separate from the one that would call for it to aid Iraq, what they fail to see is that both issues will be dealt with the same right-wing, conservative government headed by President Ahmadinejad and and takes counsel from its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei who has openly declared its abhorrence towards the US. Furthermore, how can the US trust Iran when its government and its intelligence community have allowed al-Qaeda insurgents to travel through its porous borders from Afghanistan destabilizing US efforts in Iraq? These are legitimate concerns why the US does not trust Iran.
2) While bringing in the UN would be a smart move, the question in doubt will be of international legitimacy—will other countries be willing to provide soldiers to replace US troops as they are withdrawn from the region? Whether or not these countries will deploy troops will depend on how much clout the UN can muster to bring the international community together if it were to get involved. Unfortunately, many countries today are hesitant in deploying more troops. This is evident in Afghanistan where NATO troops are spread thin while NATO governments remain hesitant to deploy more troops in the region. Sadly, the coalition of the willing is turning its back on the war, as Spain and Italy have already withdrawn their troops. If the UN were to get involved, I am afraid that the majority of the soldiers that will remain in Iraq will be Americans (so much for troop withdrawals).
3) While involving Iran in the process is difficult enough, Ms. Cobban also calls for all Mid-East countries to get involved in Iraq. (why don’t we all just sit around a campfire and sing Kum Ba Yah). With religion and sectarian divisions dividing Middle East countries, I can’t see anything more unrealistic happening with Ms. Cobban's proposal. Involving Iran in the process would infuriate Israel as well as alarm our Sunni allies in Jordan and Egypt. The repercussions in our already battered reputation in the region, I fear, will only get us into more trouble.
So what can we do? I respectfully agree with Ms. Cobban that the first action we should take is to open dialogue with Iran and bring in the UN to mediate the process. Rather than implementing sanctions, the US, along with the international community, should be talking compromise. If Iran claims to use nuclear power for energy, then it should have no qualms in letting in IAEA inspectors. Solving the nuclear issue will lead to brining Iran on board with the problem in Iraq.
In this high-stakes game of international diplomatic game-theory, the US should be the first to offer a hand of good gesture. This would not only gain the respect of the international community, but will force Iran to cooperate, lest they be seen in a negative light by the world. This is the only way the US can build trust with Iran. Continuing our heavy-handed approach with Iran will only further deteriorate the problem and isolate it from the international community; when in fact it is of US interest to get them involved, especially in solving the Iraq question.
Technorati Tags:
Iraq
Iran
Democrats
US Foreign Policy
Bush Administration
No comments:
Post a Comment