Texas Hold'em
We were talking about this last night (me and my Iraqi counterpart) over chai. One of the things I've learned is that if you want to know what is going on, you have to be open to listening to conversations where the dialogue may not be in line with what you think you should be hearing, or would like to hearing – which is why I think its probably going to be a combo of several, but the Iraqis get a vote - it does not matter if we acknowledge they do or not. I also don’t think its going to be nice and clear cut.
-Feudalistic partitioning will only lead to more trouble - the Kurds just tested the water in Kirkuk, and found it too hot. However, there is some acknowledgment that within the areas they administer, local governments can have "some" autonomy. Nobody is happy if they get left out, nobody really trusts the other enough to believe they will get a fair share of the revenues - oh, and they have their own opinions about "fair" share.
-Iran is not about to help establish a resurgent, strong Iraq in any shape or form. It is clearly not in their perceived interest - which should tell us something about what Iran really wants. They will however be happy to tell the international community what they want to hear. They will gladly sacrifice 1000s of Iraq's Shia (remember, this is the State that bussed up civilians with hand grenades to the Iraq/Iran front) for the maneuver room to improve their own position. They are currently able to keep Iraqi Shia armed and informed, and as long as Iraq is infighting it prevents any neighborhood competition. They would prefer us to decouple cooperation with the on Iran with the nuclear option - why do we think that is? In truth the two are solidly linked to the pursuit of Iranian power. Iran is very involved in regional politics to serve their own ends, we need to be honest about where ours interests and theirs diverge - it may be from the start point.
-Syria, might be more willing if it can ever figure out what Iran is really up to, and acknowledge the danger it also poses to them. However, they are so concerned abut Palestine they were willing to cooperate with Iran in resourcing Hezbullah to hurt Israel (also a player in this equation), which to me indicates they will cut off their nose to spite their face.
-Overall, if I were pursuing help, I'd turn to the border Arab states and Turkey, and quietly suggest that if they do not want to have to deal with an Iranian powerhouse, they'd better use their influence to help stabilize Iraq. Which leads to question of a "strong man"
-Bringing in a "strongman" may not be as easy as it sounds. First you have to find a guy that is willing and capable. This may not be easy as many candidates have been quietly eliminated - check out the New York Times , November 12, 2006, Pg. 1 article "Sectarian Rifts Foretell Pitfalls Of Iraqi Troops' Taking Control", by Richard A. Oppel Jr. - somebody is setting the conditions and are a couple of steps in front of us. If you do find this guy, the Iraqis may not welcome him with open arms - nobody is going to willingly give up what gains they have made for a guy who may not be an equal opportunity dictator - so its unlikely that the three groups would back a single candidate for Dictator for Life - there is some bad karma associated with the position.
The United States is going to have to play this game of "Texas Hold'em" (no pun intended ref. Texas) very close. We will have to call in favors, make some difficult choices, and find out what levers can be pulled to shape this to an acceptable outcome. I've read recently some opinions that our policy must consider first the regional future, and I agree. Too many things depend on the balance of power in the Middle East. Being shortsighted to serve political ends will only mean paying the long term consequences.
Bookmarks