A Bit of A Cynical View On Iran? Austin Bay

[Annie]

This may work, not losing perspective of Iran's goals, lots of links at site:


http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1536

11/18/2006
“To achieve what only a superpower can”
Filed under:

* General

— site admin @ 1:37 pm

Jeremy Greenstock in today’s Washington Post:

Excerpt one:

…the United States and Britain have never attempted a truly comprehensive policy on Iraq. Unless the United States and its principal allies construct an approach that brings all available resources to bear to establish stability, there will be no point in staying in the country when all objective observers see a continuing downward spiral.

That’s a call for “unified action.”

Excerpt two:

The Iraqi army must be asked to take on an increasing amount of the burden, with the coalition taking the calculated chance of equipping it more adequately. The army is the security institution with the highest status in the eyes of the population as a whole and the only one that is not largely corrupted and penetrated. Testing the Iraqi army next year, with the coalition stepping back off the streets and perhaps reducing its numbers, is a gamble that has to be taken. If it fails, and the coalition leaves, a national army will be unlikely to survive.

That’s been a goal since 2004, to have the Iraqi Army assume responsibility for security.

Excerpt three:



Rich in hydrocarbons as Iraq is, economic support from outside remains vital. The priority has to be jobs and the energy infrastructure. Oil is the glue that can hold the Iraqi state together. The effective generation of power can convince the people that better days are possible. Creating a national oil company that explicitly works for the interests of the people, and not for an elite or a region or a sect, could be a powerful and positive symbol. Enough people must have a stake in protecting the production platforms, the pipelines, the refineries and the power stations to make sabotage and disruption far more difficult. International investment in this outcome should be linked with internal political progress, but it must now include a far broader range of contributors than has so far been the case.

How do we link all these things? None will work unless they all do. The controlled collapse of Iraq into three separate and autonomous regions is not a realistic alternative, however much it seems to appeal as an escape route…

Again, not new.

But if re-casting and re-stating helps nudge sober and responsible politicians into a war-fighting consensus, good.

Excerpt four:



Iran fights a rearguard action. Iran’s Isamlic revolution flopped and everyone knows it. The mullahs think a nuclear bomb will save them, at least for a little while. They also believe continued regional troublemaking buys time. But is time really on the mullahs’ side? The demographics of discontent say “Nay.”

Inviting Iran to a conference and allowing the mullahs to make fools of themselves might be a useful ploy. Giving them any determinative capacity is a mistake, but I don’t think that’s what Greenstock is suggesting. I think this quote indicates he anticipates a lot of theater: “Countries in the region must be allowed to present their own agendas, even if they do not convince others for long.” Heh.

Do read the entire essay. Greenstock was the UK’s special envoy to Iraq from 2003-2004.

Also read this for background.

 

[Annie]

of the mess:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/11/find-right-partner.html

Monday, November 20, 2006

Find the right partner.
Where do Iraqis stand from all the debate about Iraq's future, and how do they look at the expectations and recommendations being made these days?
Iraqis are of course the most concerned and affected by the ongoing crisis but the continuous pressure and trauma made their vision so confused that they are drowned by the daily dangers and problems that compressed their dreams and thought and made seeing tomorrow's sunshine their top priority.

The government stinks—that’s the overwhelming impression that is undermining the public's support for the government and its institutions.
People are tired of criticizing and there's frustration about the government's ability to take serious measures to contain the conflict or improve performance.

Frankly speaking, the ordinary citizen lost faith in his government—worse than that would be the prospect of living with it for another four years and that sounds like a very bad idea if incompetence remains at the current level, or gets worse.

Each episode of escalation brings to the surface the argument that the government must resign or be made to resign but that is not an easy option because even if it was technically possible to force a resignation there would be no better choices ready at our disposal.

At the same time, dismissing the current legislature and calling for early elections would mean more chaos on the streets and more bitter exchange of violence among rival parties…and the ordinary people would be caught in the crossfire of this conflict.

The idea of a 'palace coup de tat' may look tempting and it's one of the popular ideas among many of the people these days as a cure for the deadly instability. But I'm not sure the advocates of this option realize the possible consequences lying beneath the sugarcoating but I understand their attitude because previous coups were mostly smooth and "stability" was regained in relatively no time.

But the case is different now, Iraq is no longer a centralized state and changing the head of the state from within-or from outside-won't be enough to make the entire country accept the change or pledge allegiance to the new administration.

Changing the head will not bring back the limbs together and it might give rise to even more complicated situations.

I agree that a coup would be welcomed by the large segments of people who are tired of the present situation but what about a few months or a year after that? What would be the reaction when months pass by and stability is not restored (and I doubt it can)?

I think the coup administration would then be put in a very similar position to this government's…embarrassed, incapable and losing public support.

Now, our real problem in Iraq is that we do not have leaderships with patriotic agendas and like we said many times in previous postings; these leaderships that work according to partisan and regional-foreign agendas are the main cause of trouble because they are in power and they would not easily abandon the agendas of their masters and regional supporters and they will remain an obstacle in the face of building the state.

The bitter fact is; it was us who brought them to power and gave them legitimacy through elections. But…regret is useless now.

I believe that America would like to see Iraq emerge as a model for the region and is working hard to find a way to solve the current crisis. But that cannot be done without having a cooperative Iraqi partner on the ground who shares similar views for Iraq and the middle east. And that's the point; that partner does not exist, at least not in the government.

And I don't think Iraq's neighbors would instruct their representatives (their servants in Iraq) to give America a hand, even though they pretend to be heading in that direction because their vision for Iraq and the region are fundamentally in conflict with that of America. They want to see America defeated in Iraq and that's of course at the expense of Iraq.

So, to start looking for solutions, America must first start looking for an Iraqi partner, a partner that is devoted to building a model state in Iraq and that favors building a strategic alliance with America instead of grave alliances with rogue regional powers that want to throw Iraq back to the ages of despotism or settle old accounts with America through a proxy war.

Perhaps figures like Allawi and his bloc stand as a good candidate for a partner but they're a candidate not big enough to form a "salvation front" and work with America and save Iraq.

There are other smaller liberal powers but these are shattered and confused and many of them chose to side with religious parties in order to have a chance to win a seat but I also think they might be willing to form new alliances under different frames, and here the Kurds arise as a potential valuable addition to the front—should they choose to stop looking at the situation from a narrow ethnic corner and realized the bigger image of the region.

Dismissing Maliki's government, whether under a constitutional cover or not, will not be a fruitful act unless before that a fresh patriotic front capable of filling the vacuum is established. This front has to be largely from within the parliament in addition to liberal powers that weren't lucky enough to reach the parliament.

This new political mass will be a very helpful asset to the patriotic Iraqi project and to America's interests, whether on the long term (the next elections) or on the short term in case Maliki's government resigned.

How can that front be assembled?

The only means is explicit, direct support from the United States to this future partner.

Everything is allowed in war and since Iran or other countries support this or that harmful party then America has the right, and the moral obligation, to support a party of its choice.

America is in Iraq now and in order to create a cover of legitimacy to any political or military solution, a strong Iraqi partner must first exist.

Posted by Mohammed @ 20:33