By Tao Wenzhao
Three weeks have passed since the mid-term elections in the
United States. The impasse in Iraq still poses a hard nut for the
Bush government to crack: Disengaging the US troops from Iraq and
at the same time steering the country clear of an overall civil
war.
Leave or stay? It's a difficult choice. For Washington, Iraq is
a hot potato much hotter than Viet Nam in the 1960s and '70s. This
is because the United States cannot afford to withdraw from Iraq
outright as it left Viet Nam in the mid-1970s. Once US troops
pulled out from Viet Nam, the war ended. The much-feared domino
effect seems not to have happened in Viet Nam in the wake of the US
pull-out.
But Iraq is different, in the opinion of this author. Once US
troops left, the sectarian conflicts and vendetta would blossom
into a fully fledged civil war. As a matter of fact, the countries
on the periphery of Iraq are already involved, with the Sunni
sections in surrounding countries providing weapons to Iraqi Sunnis
and Iran throwing its support behind the Shi'ites. This kind of
support would turn into open involvement to fill the vacuum left by
the withdrawn US troops. Iraq would, therefore, become a new source
of chaos and tumult in the Middle East.
It would, therefore, simply not work if the United States
totally disengaged itself and left Iraq at the mercy of perilous
conditions. It seems that the US troops have to stay. But can
anybody see light at the end of the tunnel?
Currently, bringing about national reconciliation in Iraq is
virtually an impossible mission. The Sunnis lost more than they
gained in the wake of the Iraq war waged by the United States and
its allies against Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. The Sunnis find
themselves put in a disadvantageous position by the constitution
formulated after the war and they can hardly swallow that fact.
To make matters worse, the Sunni and Shi'ite sections are
subdivided into different factions. At present, Iraq's army and
police forces are in the hands of various factions. The officials
in charge put their allegiance to the factions above their loyalty
to the country. In this scenario, it is extremely difficult to
satisfactorily meet the needs of all sections and factions in the
redistribution of power, even though the Iraqi Government is
reorganized along the lines suggested by Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki.
The countries on the periphery of Iraq are indispensable in
resolving the issue. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has, in
fact, conditionally offered to work together with Iran and Syria on
the effort to stabilize the situation in Iraq.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission appointed by US President George
W. Bush has met and discussed the situation in Iraq several times
with Syrian officials recently. Imad Moustapha, Syrian ambassador
to the United States, indicated that his country is willing to help
bring stability to Iraq on certain conditions, since Syria
maintains good relations with various sections active in Iraq's
political arena.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, at a meeting of Arab
foreign ministers in Cairo on November 19, said Syria was ready for
dialogue with the United States for the sake of peace and stability
in Iraq and in the whole region.
Surprisingly, Iran offered to help. Speaking at a gathering on
November 26, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran
was ready to help the United States and Britain get out of the
quagmire on condition that they refrain from bullying others.
Both countries' willingness to help has put the United States in
an awkward position. Over a long period of time, Washington has
considered Iran and Syria "patrons of terrorism," which primarily
refers to Hamas and Hezbollah. The United States also accused Iran
and Syria of conniving to filter armed elements into Iraq through
porous Syrian-Iraqi and Iranian-Iraqi borders.
The United States is also working hard within the United Nations
to make sure sanctions are imposed on Iran's uranium enrichment
programs.
Readjusting relations with these two countries means that the
United States admits its failure in Iraq and must enlist Iranian
and Syrian help to clear up a messy situation. It is also
tantamount to yielding the stage to the two, tipping the power
balance in the region in favor of Iran.
In case Iran and Syria really help, they would ask for returns
guaranteeing the Islamic system and tolerating Iran's uranium
enrichment, which are really bitter pills for Washington to
swallow.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated recently that
the United States and she herself would get involved in
negotiations with Iran if the latter agrees to ultimately give up
its uranium enrichment plan. But Iran holds that uranium enrichment
is its legitimate right as a nation.
The United States' Middle East policy is really caught in a very
embarrassing situation.
The Bush administration now tries to woo moderate Arab countries
where the Sunnis have a predominant presence. A flurry of
diplomatic initiatives are, therefore, afoot. US Vice-President
Dick Cheney toured Saudi Arabia on November 24 to talk about the
situation in Iraq with Saudi leaders. President Bush is also
expected in Jordan this week. Rice is scheduled to attend a Middle
East conference in Jordan.
How will these initiatives impact Iraq? It remains to be
seen.
Furthermore, the Bush government is confronted with another
thorny question: The Middle East peace process is now at a
standstill, or worse, backtracking.
The Clinton administration's Middle East policy revolved around
promoting the Middle East peace process. Whereas, the Bush
administration has been preoccupied with Iraq, in spite of the
Middle East roadmap worked out in late 2003.
Moreover, the United States set about elbowing Yasir Arafat from
the scene shortly after the roadmap was charted, believing Arafat
supported terrorism. After Arafat's death, the United States
thought Abbas, Arafat's successor, was a guy worth having dealings
with.
But soon, Hamas won Palestine's Legislative Council elections
and came to power. Washington refuses to have anything to do with
Hamas, which is, by US definition, a terrorist organization.
To make matters worse, conflicts erupted between Israel and
Hezbollah this summer, in which the United States took Israel's
side, much to the resentment of the Arab world.
All this only impacts negatively on the Middle East peace
process.
Some US think-tanks and diplomatic old hands believe that
Washington's vision should be extended far beyond Iraq to cover the
whole Middle East region, in which the Palestine issue constitutes
the nucleus, influencing all other big issues.
On condition that the United States really helps push ahead the
peace process in the region, moderate Arab governments would be
largely encouraged and, in turn, will be able to do much more in
fighting extremist forces within their countries and in playing a
stabilizing role in the whole region.
All this would be significantly helpful for the United States'
options in Iraq.
In view of all this, Washington must change its policy of
partiality towards Israel and work much harder to drive forward the
peace process.
Now, Palestinian factions have agreed to stop firing rockets at
Israeli targets. In return, Israel has promised to call off its
military operations in the Gaza Strip.
Can the United States seize the opportunity to advance the peace
process? Let's wait and see.
(China Daily December 6, 2006)
