American officials said Tuesday that they had agreed to hold the highest-level contact with the Iranian authorities in more than two years as part of an international meeting on Iraq.
The discussions, scheduled for the next two months, are expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
The announcement, first made in Baghdad and confirmed by Ms. Rice, that the United States would take part in two sets of meetings among Iraq and its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, is a shift in President Bush’s avoidance of high-level contacts with the governments in Damascus and, especially, Tehran.
What's going on here? I think this announcement should be read in conjunction with yesterday's adoption by the Iraqis of an oil-sharing plan. In short, we have reached a basis for the effective partition of Iraq, and Rice is now sitting down with the leaders of the other two major powers to seal the deal.
What leads me to this conclusion? Back in October, I wrote (but did not publish) a post on the possibility of an effective partition of Iraq, explaining what I see as the dynamics and calculations involved. The reason I did not publish it is because it's a very long analysis, and I felt insecure because I am in no way a foreign-policy expert. What I was discussing was simply my putting two and two together from reading the news. I am publishing it below, because I now think the analysis was and is still valid:
___________________________________________________________________
October 18, 2006
So, did anyone else notice that Iran wants to be our friend?
That's how I am interpreting events. Last month, Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Tehran with hat in hand to ask for Iran's help, and came away calling Iran "ally" and laden with riches: a pledge of security cooperation to stop insurgents crossing into Iraq, a deal on joint oil exploration, and a deal on agricultural cooperation. How convenient. I imagine that Maliki, who is Shiite and lived in Tehran for a portion of his exile from Saddam, alternately cast himself as a shrewd negotiator and the Iranians as a bunch of swell guys when he showed off the trove to his cabinet and the Americans.
For anyone who might be suspicious that it was all too pat, context had been helpfully provided. Former Iranian President Khatami made a 5-city tour of the U.S., visited Monticello, spoke at Washington National Cathedral, called the American people "great", gave many interviews and public appearances where he fielded hostile questions, all to make a case that Iran could be very reasonable if the U.S. was. Iran would join a regional nuclear nonproliferation treaty if the U.S. sat down and asked for it, U.S. military options in Iran were poor anyway, Iran never intended to destroy Israel, and Iran was moving toward democracy slowly but was overcoming millenia of despotism - all in all, saying that he was a very astute player representing a moderate faction who could be very helpful if the U.S. only stopped its unwise antagonism that strengthened the Iranian hardliners. Like a detective playing bad cop on cue, said hardliners publicly denounced Khatami's speech. It's your choice - me or them, Khatami implied; I could do something about that pesky insurgency problem in Iraq, while the Iranian fundamentalist wing will pin your Marines down for years. For a decade. Let me take that albatross from around your neck, you poor Republican Party, so you can go back to that culture war stuff you do so well. Did I mention we execute homosexuals in my country? It's like we're family.
That's clever, but not the truly brilliant part. Offering the Republicans a way out of their political jam isn't enough, the Iranians know, because the Republicans are in thrall to their own mad mullahs at the various think tanks and the office of the Vice President. To co-opt them, Khatami implicitly validated the neocon thesis that American arms can transform tyranny into democracy, and an implacable enemy into a valuable partner, and provided the soothing explanation that if the U.S. hasn't quite been able to prove the theory right in Iraq so far, it's an understandable result of the labyrinthine ways of the Middle East: "You guys are geniuses and your theory is brilliant, but the Middle East is a hall of mirrors. Hey, I can hardly keep track of it all myself - tribes, blood feuds going back centuries, wars over ancient history. Did you know Shiites and Sunnis are different? Crazy, I know. The only way out of the maze is to have a guide, sahib, a sharp one, like us Iranians. You can trust us because we want the money and influence only you can bestow, oh Great Ones. We need your help, and you need ours. If we work together, Iraq can be transformed from a mess into a brilliant success, before President Bush's term ends and you lose all influence." It's a story tailor-made for the idiots who thought the Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet.
In fact - following the train of thought to its logical end - it's a
two for one deal, because Iran will also be transformed, from Axis of
Evil to strategic partner in about six years. Implicitly, this holds up Iran as the model of how
other Islamic countries could successfully transition to
democracy, aided by more judicious applications of American power, by integrating Islamic values
with modern notions of minority rights and rule by the people.
Who knows, maybe it's even true. Clearly, the Iranians are engaged in a ploy, but maybe with a kernel of truth. There is an argument to be made that Iran really has the best chance in the region to evolve into something bearing a resemblance to a rights-protecting pluralistic republic. The Iranians are not uneducated, they're not the Taliban - they fight the Taliban, they've studied in western universities, they grew their own democratic government before we toppled it, they understand that democracy can bring stability as well as freedom, and stability is one prerequisite to accumulating the kind of power that can prevent Iran from becoming a puppet for foreigners again. All the Iranian factions agree independence is a key goal, so maybe an Islamic democracy is the means to secure it.
How likely is it? Consider: First, unlike most others in the region, Iran is a real country with a real history, not a line on a map drawn by a British colonial administrator as the best way to divide up ethnic groups and keep the pot boiling. A national identity is a much better base to work from when dealing with things like political change. Second, say whatever you want about the Islamic Revolution, it was a nationalistic movement that threw out a foreign puppet, maybe clearing the way for better things. Consider Vietnam as a parallel - whatever you thought of Ho, he liberated his country, so 30 years later it shows faint stirrings of freedom and is our good trade partner. Third, the conservatives have the upper hand in Iran, but it is also true that the political system provides for other centers of power and a (heavily constrained) diversity of views. From our standpoint, it's outrageously repressive, but notice that over 27 years the Revolution's absolutism gave way to jockeying between conservative elements and reformists somewhat like the seed of a modern political process. It's not much, but maybe it's a way to steer between fundamentalists and jihadi death cultists like bin Laden and the Taliban, on one hand, and despots like Saudi Arabia and Saddam who just breed more of the cultists, on the other.
All bull-session theorizing aside, you have to admire the sheer nerve of the Iranians. Their strategy is to use the U.S.'s own theory against it, and so vault from pariah to power, by essentially promising to help stop the insurgency as if they had nothing to do with it.
What next? After the Americans, the Saudis present the biggest obstacle. A couple of weeks ago the Saudi Interior Minister declared that all of Iraq's neighbors were on board with the Iranian security proposal, too, because of the danger that the sectarian conflict could spill over Iraq's borders. Words mean very little, of course. There has to be a workable plan that lets the Saudis know their interests will be protected. Maybe the Baker commission is working on it:
In an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Baker said, “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’ ”
Mr. Baker, who served Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state and White House chief of staff, did explicitly reject a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, which he said would only invite Iran, Syria and “even our friends in the gulf” to fill the power vacuum.
What the hell does that mean? The overseas press think they know:
The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.
“The Kurds already effectively have their own area,” said a source close to the group. “The federalisation of Iraq is going to take place one way or another. The challenge for the Iraqis is how to work that through.”
...
His group will not advise “partition”, but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue.
In other words, they're going to carve Iraq up into three pieces and give one each to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, without saying so. If the Iranians deliver on their promises on security and oil, the extra money could grease the way for partition, the Iraqi "government" could adopt a meaningless constitution with lots of nice democratish words, the U.S. military could pretend the Iraqis can defend themselves and so withdraw with honor, Bush could declare victory, the Republicans could put the whole nightmare behind them and name an airport for Dick Cheney, and the Iranians could look like heroes while they sit back and contemplate the next move.
Feb. 28, 2003 http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html
MOYERS: So this is not just about weapons of mass destruction.
WILSON: Oh, no, I think it's far more about re-growing the political map of the Middle East.
MOYERS: What does that mean?
WILSON: Well, that basically means trying to install regimes in the Middle East that are far more friendly to the United States — there are those in the administration that call them democracies. Somehow it's hard for me to imagine that a democratic system will emerge out of the ashes of Iraq in the near term. And when and if it does, it's hard for me to believe that it will be more pro-American and more pro-Israeli than what you've got now.
MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those men, Richard Perle, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?
WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.
MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s...
Joe Wilson - June 14, 2003
"The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90's which was called, "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm." And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem."
19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/28-lecture-wilson-32.mp3
"On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."
13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/29-lecture-qa-32.mp3
The War Party - BBC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6453738561338241311
Posted by: A passionate attachment | February 28, 2007 at 02:40 PM