OPINION & EDITORIAL
Negotiations with Middle East crucial
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Sprangers:
- Campaigns fail country, voters (November 30, 2007)
- Green movement missing key link (November 16, 2007)
- War rhetoric comprises policy (November 2, 2007)
- Familiar slogan to be flipped around (October 19, 2007)
- Guantanamo's end an unsolved misery (October 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Lebanon buckles under war stress (November 27, 2006)
- Senators step perilously toward war (October 8, 2007)
- Diplomacy vs. hostility in Iran talks (November 11, 2004)
- Bush laughs in face of new report, marches toward war (December 10, 2007)
- U.S. has no right to regulate nukes (February 7, 2007)
by John Sprangers
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
President George W. Bush recently stated his aversion to holding comprehensive discussions with Iran and Syria, contrary to the advice of the Iraq Study Group. However, serious diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria, perhaps even requiring considerable economic or political concessions, may be the only means of attaining lasting stability in Iraq and avoiding large-scale military conflict with Iran in the near future. And, while the probability of both ostracized states complying is admittedly small, each has a real — even existential — interest in doing so.
Converting Syria and Iran to supporters of a peaceful Iraq is essential because each has played a key role in creating the current instability. Iran, a Shi'ia Muslim-dominated state, provides funding for belligerent religious brethren in Iraq, most notably cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Syria transgresses via passivity; its border with Iraq remains porous and unguarded, allowing jihadists the world over easy passage into Iraq. The United States also has serious, legitimate concerns over the duo's dubious activities in Lebanon, including support for the terrorist group Hezbollah and Iran's nascent nuclear program. Their actions constitute some of Washington D.C.'s most urgent foreign policy red flags.
However, a military solution to these problems seems neither likely nor optimal at this juncture. President Bush's 20,000-troop surge, in part designed to counter Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq, has been met with resounding disapproval from both Congress and the American public. To fully monitor the vast Syrian border and pose a real threat to Iran would require a larger force and such a move would be met with even stronger condemnation. Furthermore, economic penalties would only be marginally effective in pressuring Iran, as Russia and China consider it a major trading partner and are unlikely to acquiesce to a U.S. sanction request. As it stands, diplomacy and simply looking the other way are the only feasible options. With a president for whom a favorite word is "resolve," the latter just isn't happening.
The Iraq Study Group Report acknowledges that there is no guarantee that talks with Iran and Syria will bear fruit, but successful precedents give hope for a similar outcome today. Libya was for some time a similar case to Iran: an egregious state sponsor of terror with a WMD program that had fallen far out of U.S. favor. Both of these practices were abandoned when Washington engaged Tripoli diplomatically and offered economic incentives. In fact, the United States has recently collaborated with both Syria and Iran themselves; Iran is helping to support Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan, and Syria is reported to have aided U.S. intelligence in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Also, as the study group notes, while there is a widely held belief that it is in Syria and Iran's interests for the U.S. army to be bogged down in an increasingly violent Iraq, an all-out sectarian civil war is a major security threat to both states.
Though the rhetoric emanating from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been brazen and fiery in recent times, his government and that of Syria must be mortally fearful of a war with the American superpower after witnessing its swift deposal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
President Bush and likeminded others will view his refusal to open discussions with Syria and Iran as a matter of principle — that such vile regimes do not warrant a dialogue with this nation upon a hill. However, such qualifications hold water only in the eye of the beholder. For instance, Israel could certainly be accused of using illegally disproportionate force in recent attacks against Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon (a U.S. "ally"), but it continues to enjoy U.S. support and aid. A state operates best when it makes rational, objective cost-benefit analyses in the interest of its people, and negotiating with Syria and Iran, however evil their past deeds, has the potential to vastly improve the situation in Iraq at negligible human or monetary price to the American people. Serious concessions may be necessary, including committing to work on a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement, permitting and even aiding an Iranian nuclear program solely for energy purposes and proffering international trade benefits or cash. The United States has unprecedented economic clout and world political sway — why not use the power of persuasion instead of military muscle?
In recent years, Bush has claimed to be committed to diplomacy in dealing with Iran and Syria, but that has been true only in the same sense that he "exhausted diplomatic efforts" in the prelude to the Iraq War. It's time for Bush to swallow his super-sized pride and negotiate with these Middle Eastern ne'er-do-wells. Change is imperative, but we don't need another Iraq — one is more than enough.
John Sprangers (sprangers@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 1:51am):
THE BH COMMENTING ON THE MIDDLE EAST AS OPPOSED TO CAMPUS SAFETY? Who would have thought?
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 7:34am):
"in the same sense that he "exhausted diplomatic efforts" in the prelude to the Iraq War."
Yeah, if he'd only given the sanctions another decade or three to do their magic!
Then Kofi and his crooked UN cronies would have been able to skim off even more billions in bribes too.
BAH - when has diplomacy worked in the Middle East? I mean for more than a few seconds. The Palis can't even agree to stop killing each other. The Sunnis and the Shites are still locked in a centuries old killing embrace.
But it's all Bush'e fault now - what a crock!
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 7:53am):
Cheney has been teetering on his last heart attack for years now. He happens to be the policy machine of this White House, and he's well aware that he might never see the final results of his policy decisions. Should we really have a guy who has "no horse in this race" making decisions that will affect the living for years to come?
At least with a candidate like Obama, we know he'll have to live with his policy decisions for the lengthy duration of his life.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 8:07am):
Too bad Mr Peanut stabbed the Shah of Iran in the back and then went all weak in the knees when some punks (led by the current Pres of Iran?) violated US sovereignty by invading our embassy and kidnapping US citizens. Once the thugs in the Middle East saw the US President as a weak coward it was the beginning of many problems that haunt the USA to this day.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 8:55am):
i think cowardice is probably the least of this president's vices in the eyes of the world.
good stuff, though i'm still not convinced that this isn't a pipe dream...
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 9:58am):
In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, FDR never considered holding comprehensive discussions with either Germany and Italy. Serious diplomatic overtures to Germany and Italy, requesting mere economic or political "concessions," would have been considered appeasement and counter to attaining victory against Japan. Confronting large-scale military conflict with the Axis Powers was inevitable. The probability of the fascist Axis Powers complying with diplomatic overtures was as irrelevant to FDR then, as it is today.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 10:02am):
Whatever critics think of its rationale, it is clear that something dramatic is going to shortly transpire, most likely a last-ditch, go-for-broke effort to secure Baghdad that deserves the support of all Americans and our representatives.
Surely if Congress can confirm General Petraeus without a dissenting vote, it can at least give this gifted officer a period of grace to allow his counteroffensive to proceed without pre-judgment -- especially when thousands of American troops will be on the offensive in a matter of hours and in greater danger as all eyes turn to Baghdad.
We hear ad nauseam that there is no "military solution" to Iraq, followed by platitudes about political compromises, trisection, fill-in-the-blanks diplomacy. But, in fact, only a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. And this is as it always has been in wars. After Cold Harbor Lincoln was at an impasse -- his twin workhorses, Grant and Sherman, stymied and stalled.
Only when Sherman cut loose from his supply lines and surrounded Atlanta (taken on September 2, 1864), along with Phil Sheridan's progress in Virginia (September - October), was Lincoln's political agenda of emancipation and reunification of the United States back on track. In World War I, the British government was tottering until General Haig withstood the German spring offensive of 1918 and gave the necessary respite for the surge of American troops to allow the allies to go back on the offensive and give the politicians the credibility to demand a German surrender.
After the fall of France, Dunkirk, losses in the Atlantic, Greece, Singapore, and Tobruk, Churchill's soaring rhetoric was wearing thin and had earned him a motion introduced calling for censure; only the subsequent successes in North Africa, in the Atlantic, and in the air above Germany gave him renewed stature to press the case for absolute resistance to Hitler. General Ridgeway did the same in Korea, mostly through personal magnetism and insistence that his demoralized subordinates cease their defeatism and go back on the offensive. Had he failed, Truman would not have the capital to save the south. Abrams, and the so-called "Christmas bombing," almost pulled off the same in Vietnam.
So now General Petraeus is trying to shake-up our forces to believe that they can and will so damage the insurgents that the Iraqi security forces and their government will gain confidence to join the offensive, and the shell-shocked citizens, sick of violence and glad for a last-chance reprieve, will support the efforts to establish calm in Baghdad.
Again, our elected representatives can at least call for a moratorium of a few weeks on self-serving bombast and blatant pre-2008 political maneuvering -- when so many Americans are now risking their all to take on the jihadists for the future of Iraq.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 12:32pm):
8:07, do you mean "weak" like taking 4 years to beat an non-existent, militia-type enemy? Do you mean "weak" like going into a war with 1/3 of the troops you need? Do you mean "weak" like letting the Taliban regain control or Afghanistan? Or, do you mean "weak" like letting Osama Bin Laden slide for almost 6 years? Define "weak" please.
Mr. Peanut, cute. We're all amused at you and your W sticker, loser.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 4:03pm):
"... his government and that of Syria must be mortally fearful of a war with the American superpower after witnessing its swift deposal of Saddam Hussein's regime."
I'm sure they just have plans for a better spider-hole than Saddam had, because it sure looks like all you have to do is wait for the Democrats to take over and then the USA will slink back home.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 5:52pm):
10:02, go-for-broke is what the Democrats are trying to avoid. This deficit spending makes a blond with a purse full of credit cards blush.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 7:10pm):
"Do you mean "weak" like going into a war with 1/3 of the troops you need?"
The war was won quickly with few casualties. It's just too bad that we didn't leave immediately. I'm not sure that I want the USA to have a million policemen ready to go to Iraq and arrest all the criminals - I mean what do they do afterward? Hunt dowm yer sorry ass?
What's REALLY to bad is that we didn't just leave Saddam in Kuwait. He'd be pumping Kuwait and Sadia Arabia dry to pay for a war with Iran - which BTW would be WAY too busy to be working on nukes. My gas would much cheaper, although it would hard cheese for the people of the Middle East.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 9:42pm):
exquisite
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
