linked - Institut kurde de Paris

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Revue de Presse-Press Review-Berhevoka Çapê-Rivista Stampa-Dentro de la Prensa-Baszn Ozeti litralb:;t;ëribunt December 9-10, 2006 The Iraq report • By Kenneth M. Pollack Don't count on Ir~n WASHINGTON however, not to exaggerate Iran's influence. The problems in Iraq ;were not As anticipated, the Iraq Study Group has recommended that caused by the Iranians, nor can Iran the United States begin talks solve them a11. with Iran to solieit its assistance Most Iraqis dislike the Iranians. ln in stabilizing Iraq. This recom- fact, "dislike" is too mild a term. ln 2004 men dation seems so sensible that the and early 2005,when it still seemed as if Bush administration's past reluctance the United States-led reconstruction of to fo11owit is hard to fathom. Still, administration Iraq might succeed, Shiite politicians officiaIs are right to were bending over backward to demon- counter that talking to Iran is not a strate thàt they were independent of policy, let alone a solution to America's Iran for fear their constituents would problems in Iraq. not support them otherwise. The real questions are these: What do Furthermore, while Iranian support we Americans say to the Iranians if we can get them to the table? What can they do in Iraq? What would they be is no doubt gratefu11yreceived, the evidence suggests that it is now more a supplement than a necessity for the m~jor willing to do in Iraq? And what will they militias. At this point, the ma1!l want in return? Shiite groups - the Supreme Councd We should have engaged Iran in Iraq for the Islamie Revolution in Iraq, the years ago. Before and during the war in Mahdi Army, and the Fadhila Party Afghanistan, the Iranians were quite among others - have considerable suphelpful to the United States. They shared our hatred of Al ~eda and the Taliban, and they provided us with extensive assistance on intelligence, logistics, The limits on Iranian diplomacy and Afghan internaI influence in Iraq are a politics. After we turned our sights on Saddam Hussein, the Iranians suggested double-edged that they would be willing to co. operate on that too. Unfortunately, the sword. Bush administration declined the offer, preferring to lump Tehran with Baghdad and Pyongyang in the "axis of port among the population and are accused evil," of making enormous amounts of None of this should suggest that Iran was helping us for reasons other than blatant self-interest, or that it had suddenly given up its antipathy toward us. money off oil smuggling and organized crime. So Tehran can influence the behavior of the Shiite groups, but it probably But it was demonstrating real pragmatism wou Id have a hard time forcing them to and being very helpful on issues of do things they do not want to do - like mutual concern, which should have disbanding their militias, accepting a been good enough. national reconciliation agreement, participating Today, large numbers ofIranian intelligence in an equitable oil-sharing agents have infiltrated Iraq, scheme or accepting any of the other where they seem to be providing major changes that the Bush administration money, weapons and other supplies to is seeking. If Iran were to virtually a11 of Iraq's Shiite militias. threaten to end its support for these There are reports that Hezbollah is groups, they would most likely tell training Iraqi Shiite militiamen in Lebanon Tehran to get lost. What's more, the Ira- at Iran's behest. And the Shiite nians seem to understand this, having warlords all know that in an alI-out civil so far proven reluctant to try to force war, Iran would be their only backer. any of the Shiite groups to radica11y AlI of that gives the Iranians influence change course. over the Shiite militias - influ- The limits on Iranian influence are a ence that could be helpful to the United double-edged sword. They mean that States as it tries to forge a new strategy we cannot count on Iran to solve Iraq's toward Iraq. We should be careful, problems, but they also mean that we need not offer the Iranians the world in return for their assistance. Right now, Tehran and its bombastie president are riding high in the Middle East, and they will doubtless want something in return for helping America deal with Iraq. For instance, they may demand that the United States drop its objections to their nuclear program or cave in to Hezbo11ah's demands for a greater say inLebanon. Especia11y given the likely limits on what Iran can deliver in Iraq, these would not be prices worth paying. Instead, the United States should emphasize a shared interest in preventing Iraq's further implosion, as chaos there could easily spread to Iran - a danger most of Tehran's leaâers seem to appreciate. ln exchange for Iran's assistance, America should recognize Iran's legitimate interests in Iraq, keep it (gener- , ally) apprised of military operations, and possibly even develop a liaison relationship with the Iranian military and intelligence serviees by whieh the two sides could exchange limited information, thereby dampening Iranian fears of malign Ameriean intentions. Much of this could be accomplished by forming a standing contact group made up of Iraq's neighbors - similar to the international support group proposed by Baker-Hamilton. The Iraqi government and the coalition forces would regularly brief this group and seek its advice, whieh should be ignored only with good reason. ln return, the members of the contact group would commit to providing specific kinds of economie, political, diplomatie and even military support. There are at least three good reasons to try this approach. First, no neighboring state is likely to significantly alter strategy unless they all do. Second, U.S. efforts to work with Iran in Iraq cannot come at the expense of our traditional allies among the Sunni states ofthe region: Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Finally, the problems in Iraq have become so daunting and so intertwined that we need every ounce of help we can get. We can't simply expect Iran to save Iraq for us. We Americans need a new, feasible plan of our own. Only then will we know how best Iran can help, and what we are willing to pay for that help. Talking to Iran without such a plan would be fruitless, if not fo11y. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution and the author of "The Persian Puzzle: The Confliet Between Iran and America.~: 33
Revue de Presse-Press Review-Berhevoka Çapê-Rivista Stampa-Dentro de la Prensa-Baszn Gzeti Baker and Hamilton firm on Iraq report They defend 'responsible way forward' despite Baghdad and conservative critics By Brian Knowlton WASHINGTON: The leaders of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group defended their approach Sunday as "a responsible way forward," even as criticism rose from American conservatives and from the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, who said it contained "some very dangerous articles." The group's co-chairmen, James Baker, a former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman, appeared on four television programs, rejecting the criticisms calmly but firmly. "Nothing we do can absolutely guarantee success," Baker said on NBC-Tv. But as the country faced a mounting crisis, he said, the unanimous recommendations of the 10-member group "might give us the way forward." "What we're saying in this report is we want to conclude this war," Hamilton added, "we want to conclude it in a responsible way." As the administration concludes its own internaI review, President George W. Bush has appeared reserved about, or even skeptical of,the panel's key recommendations, including the withdrawal of. most U.S. combat troops by early 2008 and the establishment of a regional dialogue to include Iran and Syria. Administration officiaIs say some of the panel's recommendations appear impractical or unrealistic. With the president expected to announce new directions for Iraq in the next two weeks, a small group inside the National Security Council has been racing to come up with alternative ideas. Conservative Republicans have increasingly raised their own doubts and their skepticism now vies with the largeiy sûpportive reviews of Democrats and some moderate Republicans. Critics calI the 2008 target date unrealistic; say a stepped-up emphasis on training Iraqi forces seems unlikely to bring dramatic improvement; contend that bringing Iran and Syria into talks can only mean trouble; and deplore as defeatist the report's seant mention of the goals of democracy for Iraq - and of an American "victor y." OfficiaIs from the White House, State Department and pentagon, as weIl as foreign diplomats, describe a deep reluctance in the White House to follow a core strategy of the study group: to pressure Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to rein in sectarian violence or face reduced U.S. military and economic support. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to have cautiously embraced the commission's approach on pressuring the Maliki government, people in the National Security Council and the vice president's office are said to oppose it as too risky. The British prime minister, Tony Blair, who during a Washington visit Thursday joined Bush in welcoming the commission report, seemed reluctant Sunday to threaten the Maliki government with diminished support. "1 think we've got to plan to succeed," Blair said on ABC-Tv. '~d 1 think that if we start saying to the people that we're fighting in Iraq that we're ready to get out, irrespective of the success of the mission, 1 think that would be very serious for us." ln Baghdad, Talabani added his voice to others' criticisms, saying that the report "is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution." He called it "a type of insult to the Iraqi people" and said it seemed to treat Iraq almost like a colony. ' Talabani, a Kurdish leader and a staunch U.S.aIly, singled out the recommendation that thousands of officiaIs from the ousted Baath party, many of them Sunnis, be allowed to return to their jobs, The Associated Press reported. And embedding large numbers of U.S. trainers with Iraqi units would undermine Iraqi sovereignty, he said. Kurdish officiaIs are also concerned that the plan might take control of oil revenues from Kurdish authorities. Baker, asked about Talabani's comment, called it "disappointing." But he noted that the study group found some form of oil revenue-sharing among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis "indispensablè" to any hopes for national reconciliation. Without reconciliation, he added on CNN, the world could expect "not just a broad-based civil war but a wider regional war." From the American right, the report has endured pointed criticism. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page called it a "strategie muddle," the talkshow host Rush Limbaugh labeled it "stupid" and The New York Post portrayed Baker and Hamilton as "surrender monkeys." The two men were good-natured lftralb:E(Uribunt DECEMBER 11,2006 Sunday about such comments. But more seriously, Baker said on CNN, '~merica has a huge problem here, the administration has a big problem here and it's not going to be solved by those kinds of comments and editorials, and it's not going to be solved, frankly, by a resort to politics as usual." Many people on the right oppose talks with Syria or Iran unless they first cease support for terror groups. ln Iran's case they insist it halt work on uranium enrichment. Blair, who has urged such talks, said that as for Syria, "1 don't think there's any problem with doing that at aIl, and 1 don't think the president's got a problem with doing that." Iran was more problematic. "It's undermining the Iraqi government," he said, and "trying to build a coalition of extremism in the region." But Baker, unflappable during the four television appearances, seemed particularly convinced of the wisdom of such talks. "What do we lose?" he said on NBC- Tv. "We don't give up anything." Hamilton added: "Iran and Syria are major players. Now to try to isolate them, to shove them aside, to say they don't have any impact here, 1don't think that gets you anywhere." Moderate Republicans clung to the' report as mapping a way Bush could begin the process of disengagement from a costly and difficult war. "Clearly staying the course is wrong," Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said on CNN. "We need a diplomatie effort in the neighborhood. AlI of that makes tremendous sense." Democrats remained mostly supportive of the report. "The fact it's being shot at from the right and the left shows to me it's pretty sound," Representative Jane Harman of California, a member of the intelligence committee, said on CNN. Jim Rutenberg, David E. Sanger, John M. Broder and Robin Toner contributed reporting. iht.com/americas Go online for complete coverage of the Iraq Study Group, induding the full text of the report. 34
Page 1 and 2: KURDE INSTITUT DE PARIS Information
Page 3 and 4: Bulletin 261 (Dec. 06) Contents:
Page 5 and 6: n° 261 • December 2006 Informati
Page 21 and 22: Revue de Presse-Press Review-Berhev
Page 51: Revue de Presse-Press Review-Berhev

linked - Institut kurde de Paris

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?