On the topic of James Baker and Lee Hamilton's suggestion that we talk to Iran and Syria about helping us out in Iraq, I'd say a person would have to be either abysmally stupid, mindbogglingly ignorant, or stark raving mad (or perhaps some combination of all three) to think it might be a good idea. And that's the polite version of what I think.
Victor Davis Hanson calls such a suggestion "surreal." I'm with him, as well.
But Senators--ah, Senators!--are much more refined in questioning whether the ISG's suggestion to turn to Iran for help in Iraq is really the wisest possible course.
For example, ISG head James Baker and member Lee Hamilton were quizzed Thursday by Joe Lieberman thusly:
I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq. They are, after all, supporting (the Islamist militant group) Hezbollah, which gathers people in the square in Beirut to shout "Death to America."
Not to mention that's this is not a recent occurrence: for thirty-five years Iran has been actively working and praying (loudly) for our destruction. Color me "skeptical" about whether the proposal is "realistic," as well.
John McCain's statement on the topic was a bit more to my liking:
I don't believe that a peace conference with people who are dedicated to your extinction has much short-term gain.
Or long term gain, I might add.
But here's Baker on the subject:
What do we lose by saying, "we're getting all of Iraq's neighbors together, we want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they're all about?"
That actually is an interesting question that seems reasonable on the face of it. I'll take a stab at an answer: the world already knows exactly what Iran's about, and the world doesn't much care, as long as Iran's not directly affecting them at this moment in any dramatic way. The world is relying on the US to do something about Iran, when/if it should ever become necessary, because "the world" never will. And then, when/if the US ever does act against Iran, "the world" can cricize whatever that action might be. If "the world" doesn't have enough information about Iran's goals and nature by now, then "the world" is willfully ignoring the truth, and has motivations to continue to do so.
What's more, making obeisance to Iran by asking them for "help" (the way such talks have been framed) makes us look both foolish and weak. It's not a winning combination to convey. If I were one of the mullahs, I'd be flabbergasted at the amount of foolish naivete such an act indicated--flabbergasted and pleased.
I've always thought it's usually not good to communicate desperation to one's enemies. But maybe that's just me.
One more thing: many of Iran's people would like to overthrow their government. They look to the US for a sign that we would support them in such an endeavor. I would wager, from what they're seeing of our current behavior re Iraq, they're not getting a lot of assurance that we'd be there for them when the chips are down. But talking with Iran would be just as bad as the message of our possibly abandoning Iraq; it would tell the people who would like to topple the mullahs that we are dangerously out of touch with reality, and willing to bargain with our enemies and sell out our principles in order to do so.
Has anyone else noticed that the noise about Iran's nuke program has abated significantly over the last week or so? They're loving the shift in attention. They get to pretend that they're diplomats, rather than thugs.
whatever happened to "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." ? C'mon, gotta love the Godfather!
I think Baker is generally correct and he is the man to do it. Baker should be asked to move to Tehran and reopen the American Embassy. First item on the agenda should be Khobar Towers. Hopefully the talks will spur greater areas of cooperation.
I'd disagree, neo - and will get a post together this weekend on it. Short version: until we start shooting, we ought to be talking. The content of the talk matters a lot...
A.L.
We occasionally even had talks with the USSR.
Then again, I'm not sure that's the model the ISG is suggesting.
No AL, we should start shooting BEFORE we start talking.
We want things from Iran: drop their nuke program, stop taking over Lebanon with Hezbollah, stop stirring up the Shia militias in Iraq.
IF we want them to cooperate we have to, after 27 years of weakness and appeasement, act forcefully and disabuse them of any notion that they can act without consequence.
We have to call them. An excellent starting point would be attacking their petroleum facilities. This will cause a huge spike in the price of oil. But it will also cause Iranians to start freezing. And bring their military operations including nuke building to a halt. Can't do much without fuel.
We can then threaten more: destruction of their navy (we'd have to take out their Air Force and Air Defense systems), destruction of their Army from the air and "officialy recognizing" the Azeri or Baluchi Republic, and promises of US Air protection ... crushing a rebellion requires mechanized troops, and that would be suicide against the US Air Force.
ONLY if we inflict a lot of pain up front, and can now credibly threaten even more, will Iran come to the bargaining table.
Anything else is a recipe for surrender by the US.
cnn story of 10-17-2003 Bill Jeffriss of Bakers Law Firm
defends Prince Sultan and the Saudis against a 1 Trillion lawsuit filed by 911 victims
From Democratic archives - search on Baker
Advised by Jim Baker, Saudi Princes Seek Immunity Against 9/11 Lawsuits
18-Oct-03
September 11 Lawsuits
CNN reports, "Lawyers representing two Saudi princes argued Friday that their clients have immunity from lawsuits relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they are diplomatic officials... Bill Jeffress [of Jim Baker's firm Baker Botts], representing Prince Sultan, said that the contributions made to Islamic charities that may have funneled money to bin Laden amount to 'an exercise by a foreign official of discretion to decide which international Islamic charity and what relief operations by Islamic organizations the country's going to support.' Ron Motley, lead attorney in the case against the Saudis, said the Saudi government and the two princes were told at least three times by U.S. and French officials that their contributions were funding terrorism. 'They were told that the very charities they were giving millions of dollars to every year were converting that money to terrorist activities including al Qaeda.'" 9/11 victims seek $1 TRILLION in damages.
So HOW NEUTRAL IS BAKER? One trillion $ leaning toward the muslims?
the question with regard to talking to Iran and Syria is not whether they want to "help us"; the question is whether there are areas in which our interests coincide.
And, as far as Iraq and the 'war on terror' are concerned, there are considerable areas of common interest.
1) It is in no one's interest that Iraq fall into chaos, and become a "failed state"
2) al Qaeda is antagonistic toward both the Baathist regime of Syria and the Shia leadership of Iran -- and both nations share the goal of the elimination of al Qaeda with the USA.
Furthermore, while it may not be the position of the Bush regime or the majority of posters on this site, the continued US presence in Iraq is unsustainable because of the opposition of the vast majority of Americans -- and this too is consistent with Syrian and Iranian goals.
Thus, there is a great deal of common ground here -- more than sufficient to establish productive discussions with both nations. Moreover, because the US withdrawal from Iraq under unfavorable conditions is inevitable at this point, and that once we are gone Syria and Iran will doubtless find it necessary to fill the "power vaccuum" and restore order in Iraq, it is advisable both on strategic and humanitarian grounds to engage Syria and Iran on the means by which the US can withdrawal and the Syrians and Iranians take over.
The choice is between talking and getting out in a manner that provides a number of strategic (such as reducing the antagonism and paranoia of the Syrian and Iranian regimes -- and the rest of the Islamic world ---toward the US) and humanitarian (a whole lot less dead Iraqis) benefits, and not talking, further antagonizing the world, and being instrumental in the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more Iraqis.
The ending (US withdrawal from Iraq) is going to be the same regardless -- all that is left to be determined is how that withdrawal takes place.
luka writes:
"1) It is in no one's interest that Iraq fall into chaos, and become a "failed state"
2) al Qaeda is antagonistic toward both the Baathist regime of Syria and the Shia leadership of Iran -- and both nations share the goal of the elimination of al Qaeda with the USA."
Both of your assertions are false on their face. A Sunni dominated Iraq has in the past attacked Iran and inflicted massive casualties upon them. A "failed state" Iraq is preferable to one that is capable of opposing or invading Iran. Iran has a history of conflict with the Kurds and a Kurdistan more interested in conflict with Sunni would be preferable to Iran to one that supported anti-Iranian Kurds within Iran.
There is evidence that the leadership of Iran has cooperated to lesser or greater degrees with Al Queda with respect to their mutual goal of undermining the West and the United States.
The notion that Shia and Al Queda will not cooperate is a superficial one at best.
Both of your assertions are false on their face. A Sunni dominated Iraq has in the past attacked Iran and inflicted massive casualties upon them. A "failed state" Iraq is preferable to one that is capable of opposing or invading Iran. Iran has a history of conflict with the Kurds and a Kurdistan more interested in conflict with Sunni would be preferable to Iran to one that supported anti-Iranian Kurds within Iran.
sorry, but you assume that the alternative to a "failed state" is a Sunni dominated state hostile to both Iran and Syria (a neo-con pipedream at best) and that "failed state" also means that Kurds will wind up fighting for their autonomy against the Sunnis. Neither is a terribly rational assumption, given the demographics of Iraq. (The Kurds would likely prefer a "failed state", because it would make the region under their control more autonomous -- the lack of any effective central government in Iraq is a plus for the Kurds -- but we're talking about Syria and Iran's interests here.)
Secondly, I've seen no credible evidence of any co-operation or co-ordination between Iran and al Qaeda. The fact that they have the same goal of getting the US out of Iraq (and, for that matter, all of the mid-east) does not mean they are working together.
and if you think for a moment that Iran would "co-operate" with al Qaeda by allowing it to have sanctuaries in the areas of Iraq under its control, then I;m afraid you really don't know what you are talking about. The Iranians aren't stupid...
(and face it, its not the Baathists that are attacking Shiite mosques, its al Qaeda....)
"On the topic of James Baker and Lee Hamilton's suggestion that we talk to Iran and Syria about helping us out in Iraq, I'd say a person would have to be either abysmally stupid, mindbogglingly ignorant, or stark raving mad (or perhaps some combination of all three) to think it might be a good idea."
I could not agree more. The only thing that could conceivably be more stupid is to continue stumbling around in an area that the administration obviously knows nothing about.
I have a background in diplomatic history. I cannot point to a greater foreign policy blunder than the Neo-Cons perception of the outcome of an invasion of Iraq.
There foreign policy amounted to:
1. Alienate our Atlantic allies.
2. Preach democracy in Mesopotamia (which has done without it for nearly 6,000 years)and the ME and thereby weaken our traditional allies in the area.
3. And, in doing so strengthen Shiite Iran.
Their projections on what would happen:
All our troops had to do is throw chocolates and nylons off the tanks and we would be greeted with open arms. (Never mind that none of these Foreign Policy geniuses even spoke the language, forget about having even the most rudimentary understanding of the culture.)
So, go ahead, keep on listening to the guys that gave us this debacle and the Iraqui people a life of living hell.
And, by the way, Blame the Iraqis for everything. Nothing untoward is the responsibility of the occupying power.
sorry, but you assume that the alternative to a "failed state" is a Sunni dominated state hostile to both Iran and Syria (a neo-con pipedream at best) and that "failed state" also means that Kurds will wind up fighting for their autonomy against the Sunnis. Neither is a terribly rational assumption, given the demographics of Iraq. (The Kurds would likely prefer a "failed state", because it would make the region under their control more autonomous -- the lack of any effective central government in Iraq is a plus for the Kurds -- but we're talking about Syria and Iran's interests here.)
1. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are landlocked surrounded by their enemies. Their only real chance for any form of autonomy, at this point is in an Iraqi Federation. I would also point out that the leading members of the last ruling Sunni clique in Baghdad are under death sentences for their role in genocide against the Kurds. It is in the Kurds interests to support a centralize Shiite dominanted government as a counter balance against the Sunnis.
I agree about the Neo-Con pipe dream but would go further and say that the U.S. has next to no role left to play in Iraq other than decimating it. Our credibility as far as nation building is concerned is as close as it could be to Zero.
Secondly, I've seen no credible evidence of any co-operation or co-ordination between Iran and al Qaeda. The fact that they have the same goal of getting the US out of Iraq (and, for that matter, all of the mid-east) does not mean they are working together.
I would go further and add Al Queda in Iraq statements have been loaded with calls to eradicate Shia and have claimed responsibility for bombing Shia mosques. I doubt that the Irani Shia Mullahs look upon these sorts of words and actions very favorably
and if you think for a moment that Iran would "co-operate" with al Qaeda by allowing it to have sanctuaries in the areas of Iraq under its control, then I;m afraid you really don't know what you are talking about. The Iranians aren't stupid...
3. Agree.
(and face it, its not the Baathists that are attacking Shiite mosques, its al Qaeda....)
4. The American Problem in Iraq is essentially that this administration has no idea of what is going on, not do they seem interested in finding out.
1. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are landlocked surrounded by their enemies. Their only real chance for any form of autonomy, at this point is in an Iraqi Federation. I would also point out that the leading members of the last ruling Sunni clique in Baghdad are under death sentences for their role in genocide against the Kurds. It is in the Kurds interests to support a centralize Shiite dominanted government as a counter balance against the Sunnis.
There is an underlying assumption that had the Shiites been in power during the time of the Kurdish insurrection that the actions taken against the insurrection would have been substantially different -- an assumption that I find dubious at best, especially given Iran's severe repression of its own Kurdish minority.
I consider the "Federation" solution unworkable -- especially in the long term -- at some point, Kurdish nationalists aspirations are going to run up against the interests of the Shia in maintaining/expanding their influence in the region, with tragic results.
That's why I think that the Kurds (along with the Israelis) really don't mind the idea of Iraq becoming a "failed state" for at least a couple of years. Under those circumstances, Iraqi Kurdistan could simply declare its independence, and the lack of any central authority in Iraq (and continued Sunni/Shia violence) would mean that nothing could be done about it. (This, of course, assumes that Turkey would permit an "independent" Kurdistan on its border---which could probably be arranged.)