http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/26/regionalizing_iraq/
November 26, 2006
The Boston Globe
Regionalizing Iraq
JOHN TIRMAN
WILL THERE be a new emphasis on regional cooperation to end the Iraq
war? Involving the neighbors to help stabilize Iraq is attractive and
could shape a plausible exit strategy for the United States. But the
closer one looks, the less promising it seems.
The Bush administration's war thinking has long had a regional focus,
but it is now -- like Iraq itself -- in shambles. That strategy was to
transform the region, with regime change in Tehran and Damascus openly
discussed in Washington. So regional cooperation would be a 180-degree
reversal -- itself a barrier to such a strategy.
But the Iraq Study Group headed by former secretary of state James
Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton will recommend regional
engagement, including direct dialogue and tradeoffs with Iran and
Syria and the other neighbors. The main alternatives on the
president's desk -- the Pentagon's options reported last week --
discuss troop size, withdrawal schedules, and training of Iraqis, not
regional strategy.
As many have noted, no credible exit strategy can exclude Iran's
cooperation. Iran's links to the majority Shi'ites, the government,
and other powerful actors, including militias, make it the most
significant regional player by far.
What would Iran want for cooperation, and what would cooperation mean?
The first is easier to answer: Iran wants the same security guarantees
-- i.e., no regime change -- that it also seeks in the standoff over
its nuclear program. Beyond that, some movement toward normalization,
including the ending of punitive trade restrictions, would be welcome.
In return, stout restraint on all their Iraqi allies would be
expected.
The deal would be similar for Syria. Here, the equation would perhaps
include movement on discussions with Israel over the return of the
Golan Heights. Washington blocked such discussions this autumn. Along
with Jordan, Syria has borne the brunt of the growing numbers of
refugees from Iraq -- now more than 2 million region wide -- and some
financial assistance on this is important.
Possibly more difficult to parse would be the role of Turkey. Their
military has insisted that if, as a result of a referendum next year,
the city of Kirkuk becomes part of the Kurdish territory in northern
Iraq, Turkey would move in to protect ethnic Turks in the area and to
block Kurds from declaring independence. The Turks now have 250,000
troops deployed along the border with Kurdish Iraq. One of the two oil
pipelines from Kirkuk (which has perhaps 25 percent of Iraqi oil
reserves) goes through Turkey. Small bands of Kurdish rebels are
pestering Turkey from Iraq. The entanglements are extensive, and
messy.
For Turkey, as for Syria and Jordan, money would have to be part of
the equation -- there need to be investments that are not mere
bribery. Jordan's war-related woes stem from the pro-American stance
of King Abdullah and his dwindling political capital domestically;
financial capital for economic development could be a balancing
offset.
Saudi Arabia, like all of Iraq's neighbors, is keen to keep Iraq
united in a single state -- fearing the bleed-out of political
violence and refugees from a failed Sunni heartland, or trouble with
its own Shi'ite minority. The Saudis also hold Iraqi debt and demur
from funding reconstruction of an oil-rich country.
A grand bargain would be a complex, inter-state affair. Syria plays a
cozy game with its porous border, for example, and fears growing
Iranian influence in Lebanon as well as Kurdish independence, and has
its own anxieties about regime stability. Iran promotes Shi'ite
supremacy in Iraq, its longtime rival, which sets Tehran against Amman
and Riyadh.
Can these tricky currents be navigated? There are many assets in the
region -- Turkey's able construction companies and security forces,
Syrian and Jordanian links to Sunnis, Iranian political clout, and
Saudi and Kuwaiti money. Each stands to benefit from a stable Iraq,
but each is cautious about giving up too much, too quickly, to be the
good neighbors America needs for Iraq.
Few if any peace processes can succeed without the neighbors' active
consent. That this was ignored by President Bush at the outset
underscores the larger, deadly blunders of the whole enterprise. But
we must forge accommodations with the neighbors to ensure a safe and
imminent departure for US forces. That means giving up the dreams of
transformation, moribund anyway, and bringing to the table a large
purse. Those two preconditions for Washington will not guarantee
success. But without such flexibility, the neighbors will be difficult
to entice and the prospects for building a durable peace in Iraq will
remain a faint hope.
John Tirman is executive director of MIT's Center for International
Studies.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.