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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.
