Iraq’s Regional Partners

The Iraq Study Group clearly intended that the U.S. engage Iran and Syria diplomatically on the subject of Iraq’s future while the Iraqis took over the burden of fighting the war so we could leave. What we have now the opposite – American troops are doing the bulk of the fighting while the Iraqi government is convening a regional conference in which the U.S. will be a participant along with Iran and Syria.

We don’t like the idea of a conference at all – if we could get rid of it, we would – but we can’t, so let’s see how we could make it work.

The Iraq Study Group clearly intended that the U.S. engage Iran and Syria diplomatically on the subject of Iraq’s future while the Iraqis took over the burden of fighting the war so we could leave. What we have now the opposite – American troops are doing the bulk of the fighting while the Iraqi government is convening a regional conference in which the U.S. will be a participant along with Iran and Syria.

We don’t like the idea of a conference at all – if we could get rid of it, we would – but we can’t, so let’s see how we could make it work.

The U.S. would certainly face increased difficulties in the war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them if Iran with its Shiite allies, and al Qaeda with its Sunni allies, could use Iraq as a launching pad for further regional adventures. Nevertheless, Iraq – and the role of Iran therein – is a much bigger problem for our Turkish and Sunni Arab friends than it is for us. So they should take the lead here. Along with funding militias, Iran is spending millions to woo Arab Shiites with reconstruction funds. If Saudi Arabia is so worried about Persian Shiite brazenness in the region, let the Saudis bring some of their millions to help the Iraqi government. Egypt has weight as the center of the Arab world. Maybe Egyptian interest in Iraq’s wellbeing would help Shiite Iraqis see their future as Arab Iraqis, not as appendages of Persia.

Yes, we are suggesting that Sunni Arabs place Arab-ness over Sunni-ness. Yes, we are suggesting making Iraqi Arab Shiites feel confident that the Sunni-majority Arab world is their home too. We are strongly suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others consider their own futures if Iran a) acquires nuclear capability and b) spreads instability and terrorism across the region.

America might consider sitting quietly and listening.

So whom should we send? The first round of talks will, apparently, be ambassadorial. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq has already sat with Iranians in Baghdad – again, we’re not happy about it, but the next meeting won’t break a precedent. The U.S. should make it clear, however, that Condoleezza Rice will not be personally involved in any Iraqi-sponsored regional conference at any level. Rewarding the Iranians with a high-level U.S. government meeting in this context would undermine our efforts on the nuclear issue – the single highest priority item in the U.S.-Iranian context.

In the meantime, the President should consider a special envoy for the Middle East and we renew our suggestion that he choose John Bolton. Amb. Bolton is, of course, knowledgeable about Iran, Iraq and other regional issues – including Arab-Israeli issues, should they arise in this or any other context. His presence would ensure that a) the participants in the conference understood that the envoy had the President’s complete confidence, and b) the President considered Iraq’s conference important enough to send not necessarily the highest-ranking official, but the one best suited the job of protecting American interests in a multilateral setting.