|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 13, 2008 / 10 Sivan, 5768 Peace with friends By Caroline B. Glick
Tuesday, the day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki completed his three-day
visit to Iran, his envoy to the Islamic Republic received a care package - delivered
to his front door. When Iraqi Ambassador Mohammad Majid al Sheikh's driver opened
the package, he discovered it was a bomb.
In their best Farsi imitation of the Godfather, Iranian police spokesmen claimed
that the package was not a bomb - but aquarium equipment. And in a way, they were
right. The package was supposed to help al Sheikh "sleep with the fishes."
Just as is the case with their Syrian allies, the Iranians view assassination as the
easiest way to "signal" their displeasure with various diplomatic developments. In
this case, clearly the Iranians were acting out after what they considered to be a
deeply disturbing discourse with Maliki.
Until recently, Maliki was viewed with suspicion by many observers due to his
apparently warm relations with Iran. Indeed, ahead of his visit, just to make sure
he got the message, US military commanders in Iraq stated clearly that they hoped
Maliki would protest the fact that Iran is the central engine of the now waning but
still murderous insurgency in Iraq. The Iraqi people too, expected him to be clear
about the untenable state of affairs where Iran wages war against Iraq through
proxies on the one hand, and waxes poetic about its great friendship with Iraq on
the other.
Writing in Iraq's Al Dustur newspaper ahead of Maliki's visit, Bassim al Sheikh
opined, "Maliki's delegation will be presenting the Iranian side with irrefutable
evidence of Iranian interference in Iraqi domestic affairs.In this light, the visit
could prove to be a watershed in Iraqi-Iranian relations, especially now that the
covert game Iran has been playing in Iraq has become all too overt, with very few
hidden cards left in Teheran's hand."
Then too, Iraq's Al-Sabah al-Jadid editorialized, "Maliki's visit to Iran could be
the last chance for a rational settlement of any differences and a final dissipation
of any misunderstanding that may still exist between us and our big neighbor.There
is nothing in the lexicon of political pragmatism that will help us evade the
consequences of living next door to this neighbor, as recent history has shown with
such clarity."
Media reports of the visit included no details of what Maliki told his Iranian
hosts. But given their attempt to assassinate his ambassador the day after he left,
it can be assumed that the Iranians were uninterested in "a rational settlement of
any differences." And indeed, it can be assumed that Maliki didn't mince any words
as he discussed the war Iran is waging against his people.
What the media reports of Maliki's visit did highlight was Iran's apoplectic
response to Iraq's current negotiations with the US towards an accord on the
modalities of the long-term deployment of US forces in Iraq. The Iranians - from
supreme mullah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - was
absolutely clear that from their perspective, if the Iraqis sign such an agreement,
there will be hell to pay.
But the Iraqis have also been clear that they are interested in signing such an
accord. While in its coverage of the negotiations, the Western media has
concentrated on statements by Iranian-backed Iraqi lawmakers voicing their staunch
opposition to the agreement, most Iraqis support it. They simply want to ensure that
the agreement that is eventually signed protects their interests as a country. As
Iraqi blogger Mohammed Fadhil noted last week in an article published at Pajamas
Media website, this is why the Iraqi government has "sent delegations to Germany,
Japan and South Korea to listen to what they - and not the mullahs - have to say
about [their experience with long-term US troop presence on their soil]."
The strategic agreement now being negotiated between the US and the Iraqi government
is a watershed event. Five years after Saddam Hussein's terror-supporting, weapons
of mass destruction seeking regime was brought down by the US-led coalition, a
democratically elected Iraqi government has emerged that views its strategic
interests as aligned with the US's. Its forces are fighting side by side with US
forces towards the shared goal of routing al Qaida and Iranian-backed terror
militias in Iraq. Indeed, in March, Maliki himself led the Iraqi assault on the
Iranian controlled militias in Basra. Two months later, Iran had been routed not
only in Basra, but in Sadr City in Baghdad where Iraqi and American forces fought
side by side in street after street.
Although referred to as a security agreement, to all intents and purposes, the
agreement that the US and Iraq are now negotiating is a peace agreement. As most
political theorists will attest, peace agreements are contracts between countries
with shared interests whose representatives sit down and write out how they will
advance their shared interests together. So five years after the fall of Saddam, a
multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy in Iraq has emerged which views the US as
its primary ally.
This is what a strategic victory looks like.
Not surprisingly, just as the meaning of developments in Iraq has escaped the notice
of most Americans, so too, it has escaped the notice of most Israelis. And this is a
shame for two reasons. First, it is a shame because Israel is missing out on the
most significant development in our neighborhood since the Six Day War. And like the
Six Day War, Operation Iraqi Freedom holds great opportunities for Israel. The
second reason that Israel's almost complete ignorance of the significance of events
in Iraq is a shame is because as Israel moves towards new elections, developments in
Iraq point the way towards a new strategic framework for the next Israeli government
to base its policymaking on.
For months, US commanders in Iraq have been saying that the Iraqi people cannot
abide by the Iranians, the Syrians or the Saudis. They know that these countries
have been the chief sponsors of the insurgencies that have killed tens of thousands
of Iraqi citizens over the past five years. From the mass graves of al Qaida victims
in Diyala Province to the death squads of Iranian-backed militias in Basra, the
Iraqis know that these countries have acted with malice aforethought in their
actions aimed at transforming Iraq into a massive killing field.
For Israeli ears, is striking about the Iraqi discourse is the near total absence of
anti-Israel or anti-Semitic propaganda. Indeed, there is no discussion about Israel
at all. From the 1930s through the fall of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of the
central propagators of Arab hatred of Israel of both fascist and jihadist pedigrees.
Successive Iraqi regimes have used hatred of Israel as a way of solidifying and
justifying their tyranny. And now, for the first time, Israel isn't an issue.
The Iraqis are concerned about their future. Whether US forces remain in place for
years to come under a President John McCain or they are summarily withdrawn by a
President Barack Obama, the Iraqis know that one day they will be on their own. And
they will need allies. They cannot trust their Arab neighbors which treat the Shiite
majority country now governed democratically with hostility and suspicion. Obviously
Iran and Syria aren't good options. They will both be quick to pounce on a post-US
withdrawal Iraq.
And then there is Israel.
There is no reason to doubt that Israel has a potential strategic ally in Iraq
today. Indeed, Iraq could become the next decade's version of Turkey in the 1990s or
Iran in the 1960s and 1970s. Both in their day were Israel's primary regional ally.
Diplomatic and military discussions may be drawn out and difficult. They may even be
exasperating. And depending on developments in Iran in the coming years they may
never lead to the signing of a peace treaty on the White House lawn or the exchange
of ambassadors. On the other hand, they might.
But what is clear enough is that today Iraq shares vital interests with Israel. It
has common enemies. It has common challenges as a democracy. And it doesn't hurt
that Palestinians are nearly universally reviled by Iraqis who view them as Saddam
Hussein's most stalwart henchmen.
An Israeli-Iraqi alliance would help secure Jordan. It would frighten Syria and
perhaps force Damascus to reconsider its alliance with Teheran. It would provide
Israel with a new source of natural gas and so end its dependence on fickle Egypt.
It would mitigate Israel's political isolation in the region. It would provide Iraq
with a safe port in the Mediterranean for its oil exports in the event that the
Shaat al Arab is closed by Iran in a future war. Iraqi Shiite leaders could
potentially help draw Lebanese Shiites away from Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah.
Indeed, the potential of an Israeli-Iraqi alliance is seemingly endless.
There is a basic political fact of life that stands at the heart of this theoretical
Iraqi-Israeli alliance. Peace is possible for the first time between Israel and Iraq
because for the first time, Iraq perceives its own self- interests as aligned with
Israel. That is, peace is possible because at a very basic level, Iraqis today,
whether they admit or not - are Israel's friends. And they know it.
And this raises the larger point that should inform the next Israeli government.
Specifically, unlike what Israel's Left has been preaching for the past twenty
years, peace is made with friends and not with enemies. It is impossible to make
peace with enemies because enemies perceive their interests as being in competition
with one another. And since peace agreements are nothing more than codifications of
the modalities for acting on perceived shared interests, no peace treaty with an
enemy is worth the paper it's written on.
It is hard today to find an Iraqi leader who overtly states his desire for peace
with Israel. Mithal Alousi is the one heroic exception. But that is not important.
By signing a peace treaty with the US and confronting Iran head-on, the Iraqis are
making it abundantly clear where they believe their interests lie.
By way of comparison of course, there are Iran's Palestinian and Syrian allies and
proxies who claim that they are desirous of peace with Israel at the same time as
their actions - and indeed their other statements - make clear that they perceive
their interests as antithetical to Israel's interests. As a result, no matter how
hard Israel tries, it will be unable to make peace with them - unless the
Palestinian and Syrian perception of their interests changes.
There is little doubt that the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government — which has
ignored Iraq throughout its tenure as it has capitulated to Iranian proxy after
Iranian proxy — will fail to recognize this opportunity. But the next government's
strategies should be informed by the call: Give peace with friends a chance!
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
