« On The Arab-Iranian Hostility Toward Israel | Main | On Placing Responsibility Where It Belongs »
December 1, 2006
Let's Get Real - Iran and Syria Won't Be Riding To Our Rescue!
Topics: IraqDespite what the "realists" believe, and in this group we need to include the ISG of James Baker and company, "talking" to Iran and Syria will accomplish absolutely nothing other than to hand Iran and Syria an American defeat in Iraq that they can use for propaganda, and accomplish regional and military objectives that are presently being denied them by American might and influence. As Charles Krauthammer notes in his WaPo piece entitled, "This is Realism?", the key to progress is political change within Iraq, not to go 'regional,' engaging Iran and Syria in order to have them pull our chestnuts out of the fire," which rests on the ridiculously false notion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in there being stability in Iraq with a U.S. presence:
At best they might give us a few months to withdraw. But why do we need their help to do that? We can do our withdrawing very well without them. And in return for non-help in a non-solution that is essentially a surrender, Syria would demand to be given a free hand once again in Lebanon -- just as, when the United States needed help in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War, then-Secretary of State James Baker gave Lebanon over to Syria as a quid pro quo.Good points all ....And Iran will demand a free hand with its nuclear weapons project, which will turn it into the regional superpower dominating the Gulf Arabs and their oil.
If that would save Iraq for us, there might at least be an argument for such a swap. But just to cover an American retreat? This is sacrificing one interest without even securing another. It's enough to give realism a bad name.
And as Blue Crab Boulevard points out, it's likely worse than Krauthammer paints it: I
f we withdraw under these conditions, how long until the same occurs in Afghanistan? Pakistan is already urging NATO to capitulate to the Taliban. How much more strident will those calls become? The realists, in their unrealistic set of beliefs are leading us into an even worse scenario under the guise of preaching stability. We don't need Iran and Syria "helping" us, they will only provide more of the same type of help they already have. Iran has openly announced that they are ready willing and able to invade - they call it sending troops, but only a "realist" would call it assistance.
Diana West, writing at Townhall, refers to the ISG realists as "blue-ribbon" lunatics who argue that it's in America's national interest to "solve" Iraq by seeking help from the terrorist likes of Iran and Syria.), and points to a very interesting scenario; she offers "And what is "or else," anyway? (referencing the oft-heard notion of victory or else):
"Or else" refers to the cataclysm that's supposed to occur should we decide that remaking Islamic culture isn't our strong suit or in our national interest, and thus refocus our mission so as to ensure that Islamic culture doesn't remake us. Depending on its purpose and execution, withdrawal -- or better, redeployment -- wouldn't necessarily lead to cataclysm.Borrowing from Diane's piece - I like!!!Here's an "or else" scenario from Nawaf Obaid, an adviser to the Saudi government, that actually sounds promising -- not a term that usually springs to my mind to describe Saudi scenarios. Contemplating what he would call an unwelcome American withdrawal from Iraq, Obaid writes that the Saudi government just might fill the breach out of "religious responsibility" to Iraq's Sunni minority. Saudi Arabia, "the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community," Obaid writes, just might decide to support Iraq's Sunni fighters, just as Iran has been supporting Iraq's Shiite fighters, to avert a possible "full-blown ethnic cleansing."
Imagine: Sunni Saudi Arabia vs. Shiite Iran -- and nary an American soldier ordered to pull his PC punches in the crossfire. But there's more. Obaid continues: King Abdullah might also "decide to strangle Iranian funding of the (Shiite) militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties .... The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."
I like. If Saudi Arabia "strangled" Iran's economy, that would also strangle Iran's capacity to fund its nuclear blackmail program, not to mention Hezbollah and other murderous proxies. And what was that the Saudi adviser said about cutting the price of crude oil in half? A Saudi-Iranian, Sunni-Shiite rift over Iraq sounds like a win-win situation for the United States, maybe even better than the Sino-Soviet rivalry of the Cold War. This time around, instead of nuclear weapons to build in the interim, we would have something even more liberating to work on -- energy independence.
As for a take home message here, let's look to Max Boot, who in my opinion, offers something we need to keep in mind:
"a real realist would realize that Syria and Iran are only likely to accommodate the U.S. when they're afraid of us. Iran played a constructive role in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and Syria scuttled out of Lebanon in 2005 under strong pressure. Now, however, we would be bargaining from a position of weakness, not strength."As for the ISG and their ilk, I question the realism of "their" realism.
Related reading, and an idea I can agree with whole-heartedly: Give Maliki deadline: Compromise with Sunnis or step down
Posted by Richard at December 1, 2006 9:43 AM
Articles Related to Iraq:
