Who’s negotiating from weakness?
The Baker Study (Iraq Study Group) will be released this Wednesday. It has actually been released piecemeal for several weeks now, and a lot of the leaked content suggests “solutions” to problems that have either already been hashed and rehashed for months and some that make the hairs on many American’s necks stand up on end. Although this whole joke of a sideshow may be just a meaningless diversion for the press and blogs to chew on while the real work gets done behind the scenes, we may as well take a look at the whole thing and make that judgment later this week. The report might actually prep us for some concepts that might let us see the Iraq situation differently. A few of the report’s more contemptible suggestions (for instance reaching out to Iran) may not turn out to be what they seem to be at first glance.
So what is the best way out of Iraq?
Maliki, at least according to the pundits, is too weak or strapped to string more than two good news days together. Far too many people believe Iraq’s solution–however vague it may be right now–must be simply hiding somewhere within Maliki’s reach, but he’s too weak to flush it from the shadows. But, he may be irrelevant anyway, as the yellow brick road may lead to a solution negotiated and resolved outside of Iraq’s borders. A second look at current Moscow-Tehran relations may provide the key to eliminate much of the chaos in Iraq, if you’re under the assumption that a great portion of Iraq’s instability (not all, of course) derives its power from Iranian-backed militias.
In synch with the foreign policy reality checks facing the newly-empowered Democrats every day of their new term, the American media is starting to acknowledge that the “quagmire” in Iraq is not solely the hangover from an early 2003 binge of aggressive Bush idealism (any way this could have been mentioned before the 2006 elections?). Although it’s a little early for some eager skeptics to quit blaming America for all of the violence in the Middle East and Central Asia, at least there is a realistic sense of recognition that Iran has been successful at exporting its brand of radicalized Islam beyond its frontiers, to this date killing more people than its underground nuclear weapons program.
As Iran has a long history of meddling in the region long before the Iraq War, America cannot continue to be considered the sole regional protagonist. Although the primary cases for Iraqi intervention will be argued for years to come, critics of the Iraq war must now acknowledge some of the more strategic reasons for going there–without dipping back into hysterical accusations of Halliburton profiteering and draft-dodging leaders. They must now acknowledge that a plan for confronting Tehran’s expanding sphere of influence was at least a fundamental tenet of the “naive idealism” neoconservatives devised for Iraq. Sadly, too, because this epiphany comes at a time when everyone is screaming “pullout” when the inverse reaction is necessary.
The real story lies underneath the daily news cycle, a world rarely penetrated by most Americans who care only about the headlines. The daily news cycle, topics, and content is so mediated by interested parties that it is impossible for a casual reader to understand the true situation. Hence, it is too easy to influence perceptions, and in many cases common ledes in the media end up being the exact opposite of reality. Thus, it is impossible to understand the current situation in Iraq without uderstanding 1) Russian interests in the region and 2) the true Iranian situation.
Russia
Russia and its extensive political and media assets opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, so it’s not a huge stretch to imagine that Russia-friendly anti-war narratives would be echoed much too easily in the main legacy media, itself a bastion of liberal elitism laden with generation-old socialist sympathies. Even today, these same outlets continue to disseminate defeatist news–even roughshod propaganda–over the wires. That most of the “news” doesn’t accurately reflect the true situation isn’t important to these outlets. What’s important is the long-term effect such negative news has on the policymakers in America. It is reasonable to conclude that some of this inflammatory content is influenced by, or in some cases generated by, the ultimate masters of propaganda the Russians themselves. We already know Al Qaeda has successfully attempted to influence American media.
After we removed Iraq from the Russian sphere of influence (after Russia inserted itself after the Gulf War), Russia has steadily relied upon its alliance with Iran to alleviate cashflow and trade difficulties. However, Russia failed to secure managing responsibilities of the major Caspian Sea fuel pipeline which bypasses Russian territory altogether. A Russian-Iran fossil fuels corridor was to be the keystone of future Russo-Iranian cooperation, and the Americans had orchestrated a way around it. But, the US would find ways to mend fences.
In the 1990′s, Russia helped Iran address the Taliban, and relied on Iranian support to minimize radicalized Islamist activity in Azerbaijan and other Transcaucasus regions. When the United States routed the Taliban, we avenged ourselves but also reduced a threat to Russian and Iranian interests, which, incidentally, also paved the way for better Russian-Pakistani relations.
Now, we are welcoming Russian entry to an expanded role in NATO, which was absolutely unheard of ten years ago. NATO even staged a conference on former Soviet soil just weeks ago. We have lobbied the WTO on Russian acceptance, and it appears that Russia will join the WTO in early 2007, once final negotiations are complete.
Although Putin seems to be consolidating power and crushing dissent in an alarming manner, we apparently have plenty of political capital to spend with Moscow. I would say that Bush discussed Iran’s influence in Iraq at his meeting with Putin at the Moscow airport last week, and probably tried to win a pledge from Moscow to lobby for Iranian non-involvement in Iraq (through Al Sadr) in the same way Russia plied Iran for support in Tajikistan and Chechnya, even though Iran is supposedly pro-Muslim its foreign affairs.
Iran
Is Bush responsible for a belligerent Iran that appears to be fighting American interests in Iraq? Yes, but for precisely the opposite reason than common wisdom suggests. Iran exudes hubris and is an international maverick not because America is in a weak strategic position in Iraq–it is BECAUSE we’re next door in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and because Iran fears us more than they fear UN blowback on their nuclear program.
But what do they have to fear? Will we attack? Almost certainly not, knowing their deep relationships with Russia, China, and even Germany. It’s possible by we’ve relayed a message of mass destruction to Tehran, but it’s not likely. We’ve likely followed with further olive branches in addition to what we’ve already given them—we’ve eliminated cross-border Sunni extremism on two of their largest frontiers, at no cost to Tehran They know Iraq will not invade them again. We’ve offered them direct help on generating safe nuclear energy, which the conservatives in Tehran declined because of several unintelligible reasons. We’ve even offered to assist the Russians in helping Iran. They accepted our disaster relief after the Bam earthquake. These were carrots, yet it’s America that is seen as the obstacle to diplomacy.
On the other prong, we’ve lobbied the Security Council on sanctioning Iran for its noncompliance with their nuclear program. We ourselves sanction them in other trade. We dashed the scope of their Caspian Sea master plan with Russia. We have threatened to bolster nearby Azerbaijan’s military to influence the outcome in the recurring Nagorno-Karabakh conflict against Tehran. The Busheir reactor project (Iran’s shining example of Russian cooperation) has been delayed many times, sometimes due to American interference. We have isolated Iran to the point such that military action *seems* to be the only available option to get Iran to play nice. Where does Iran go when they’re boxed in so nicely? They have to turn closer to Moscow.
So who’s negotiating from weakness?
Conclusion
We seem to be treating with the Russians in world markets at the same time as competing against them in the Caspian Sea. This is standard diplomacy, as is threatening Iran with energy sanctions while offering them their own piece of the Baku bonanza in their own back yard. Iranian conservatives, however, have never been considered good diplomats and will only turn nearer to Moscow when faced with even more international pressure. This is a self-tightening screw for America as far as Al Sadr is concerned. The key to a more stable Iraq is stronger pressure on Tehran via Russia. We would be negotiating with a partner with tremendous influence in the region and with no perceivable advantage to the American position.
The US will withdraw troops from Iraq within the near future, and the rate of drawdown will be proportionate to the situation on the ground instead of to the shrill cadence of an intransigent media. Until then, the Coalition is training and delivering support to Iraqi forces as has been the plan, to protect from internal and external threats. The most likely solution to violence in Iraq is undoubtedly a political solution, but not a political one inside Iraq’s borders (sorry, Joe Biden). It will be a complex geopolitical solution that will change the face of Central Asian and Middle Eastern politics, which was exactly the partial rejection of the status quo that the Bush Doctrine had posited. That Rumsfeld or Bolton or Wolfowitz aren’t present to address the results does not invalidate the strategy.
If this is considered realism, then so be it.
p.s. (thanks for the Insta-link)
Related posts: