Yes, We Really Must Talk With Iran
If American troops are ever to come home from Iraq and Iraqis are to have a decent chance at peace and prosperity, the United States must open up a new chapter in its Middle Eastern diplomacy. The Iraq Study Group in 2006 made this point when it called for "diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions." The Bush administration has largely ignored this advice.
The diplomatic challenge before the United States and the international community is to secure non-intervention of neighboring states in Iraqi affairs and to nurture a substantial international commitment to long-term Iraqi recovery from its decades of war, sanctions and authoritarian rule. To meet this challenge, the United States will need a new policy in the broader region.
Probably the most important and most difficult initiative, given American political attitudes, is to engage Iran and Syria in non-coercive "give-and-take" diplomacy addressing bilateral issues. The Iraq war has strengthened Iran's position, not weakened it as the war's architects once hoped. The policy of isolating Iran as a "rogue state" is no longer viable. If the United States is to make progress in exiting Iraq it must be willing to treat Iran as a peer state. This will be unwelcome news in Washington, but it is a reality the United States must deal with, and the sooner the better.
New diplomacy with Iran and Syria should have a wide-ranging scope to afford the U.S. maximum advantage. Talks of this scope should also address what else Syria and Iran could do, beyond pledging non-interference in Iraq, to calm regional tensions.
These talks should be part of a vigorous series of "structured engagements" with U.S. allies Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The engagements may need to be sequenced in particular ways to ensure maximum confidence; Iran, for example, may need to be reassured of Turkish pledges of non-intervention in northern Iraq. The United States should strongly encourage Turkey to allow processes of Iraqi reconciliation to resolve the question of Kirkuk. Bilateral talks with the neighbor states will also afford the U.S. forums where it can emphasize and demonstrate its commitment to an expanded International Compact with Iraq under U.N. auspices.
The United States should call for the establishment, as part of the existing International Compact with Iraq, of an International Support Group comprising the five permanent Security Council members, Iraq's six neighbors and a representative of the U.N. secretary-general. Within this Support Group, the United States should seek an agreement on a code of conduct for international relations with Iraq, emphasizing the principle of non-interference, an agreement on common goals and compromises required for the stabilization of Iraq, and collaborative support for a reinvigorated internal Iraqi reconciliation process.
The Support Group should also have a standing forum for sharing and addressing security concerns related to Iraq. It can work to counter incitement of religious, sectarian or ethnic animosities within Iraq by encouraging legislation and statements against incitement by political and civil society leaders in the region. It should also persuade neighboring states to redouble efforts to control their borders with Iraq, including rigorous programs to crack down on recipients of smuggled Iraqi oil and any remaining infiltration of foreign fighters.
The United States can also use its diplomatic leverage to convince Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to play a key role in underwriting Iraqi economic development by forgiving the debt bequeathed to Iraq by the deposed regime of Saddam Hussein. Kuwait can help significantly by canceling or deferring payments of reparations for the 1990 Iraqi invasion ordered by Saddam's regime.
It will not be easy for U.S. leaders to make these diplomatic moves and there can be no guarantee of success. Indeed, the level of distrust and fear shared among the parties to negotiations will make any diplomatic progress difficult.
The United States must be prepared to offer incentives if it is to get cooperation from nations it currently treats disdainfully and sometimes openly threatens with military action. But if the United States does not soon face into what it must do, the price it pays to exit Iraq will only grow steeper.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show AllDiplomatic relations between the USA and Iran are essential, necessary, and critical to the security of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq! Period!
It seems that the USA did not know that Ieaq was a predominately Shiite nation as is Iraq, while Saddam Hussein was basically a secularist dictator - despite the USA relations with him since the seventies. Almost as if the whole Iraq...situation came about out of sheer ignorance on the USA part of the internal workings of Iraq. For example, the USA tying Hussein with bin Laden via propaganda tools. After all, a nation is unable to learn from another nation when one nation has continuous sanctions and bombings over a roughly twelve year period over another nation.
Ironically, in retrospect, maybe Saddam Hussein could have been an ally for the USA in the "War on Terror" after all. Sure, once upon a time, Saddam Hussein went against USA interests in the late eighties. Still, maybe the USA and the Baathists should have let bygones be bygones regarding the new "War on Terror." Think about how much money the USA would have saved. Think about how much money the USA would have saved had it not CHOSEN both to seek revenge against Afghans while using Iraq as a scapegoat for its grief.
Meanwhile, the USA demonizes Iran - a nation that, ultimately, the USA did a favor to, at the USA expense. Ummmmmmm...? "Must spread Democracy worldwide" the USA spokespeople say? This talking point is simply not accurate. However, it is sufficient for a significant number of Americans to believe if repeated over and over again. My condolences to those Americans who are so prone to propaganda. Just think, some of them may vote for John McCain while seeing the light after the fact.
"The Bush administration has largely ignored this advice."
Jesus wept. What couldn't you say this about?
"the United States should seek an agreement on a code of conduct for international relations with Iraq, emphasizing the principle of non-interference"
Ha!
Yes, We Really Must Shut Up And Behave Ourselves! . . (Now THAT is really UN-American)
No, that's not what the author said. The author is saying that we can't expect the situation with Iran to change unless we change our approach to it. It's been painfully obvious over the last 8 years that ignoring countries like Iran DOES NOT WORK. We need to try to establish dialogue with them if we hope to get anywhere PEACEFULLY. Obama is willing to do this. McCain is not. Palin wants to just nuke Iran first day she's in office.
"If the United States is to make progress in exiting Iraq it must be willing to treat Iran as a peer state. This will be unwelcome news in Washington, but it is a reality the United States must deal with, and the sooner the better."
very, very true
Iran is not my enemy.
First of all, the USA must re-examine its entire US history and find a way to take a peaceful path for everything instead of war. Going to wars was what oiled this nation and until we quit making fun and even threatening those who want peace, the MIC will continue to DRUB we the people.
Perhaps if the US really wanted dialogue, it might consider ending its cross border attacks from Iraq into Iran, or is that concept too “way out there” for Americans?
The price it pays for Iraq goes right into the pockets of the MIC, and then therefor into the pockets of our representatives. We just incurred the wrath of Syria by doing a cross-border raid into their country, does that seem like we are trying to get out of Iraq? If we do get out of Iraq we will just throw more money and troops at Afghanistan, or Iran. The MIC will never be satisfied so it must be destroyed.
“I have no doubt that we will be successful in harnessing the sun's energy... If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago.”
--Sir George Porter