Friday, January 15, 2010 - 6:40 PM
Guest Post by Brian Katulis, Center for American Progress
In advance of Iraq’s elections in March, several Iraqi leaders are coming to Washington to meet with Obama administration officials, and Vice President Joe Biden is rumored to be preparing a series of meetings on the subject with the national security principals later this month. Yesterday, the White House hosted Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul Mehdi, one of two vice presidents and a leading figure in the Shia party Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, in a meeting that didn’t attract any media attention.
The Iraqi embassy invited me to a small meeting at DC’s Ritz Carlton with Abdul Mehdi, and he said he had just come from the White House meeting with President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden. The conservation, attended by a small number of the usual Iraq policy nerds from think tanks, was wide-ranging. Here are two key points, not including one tantalizing tidbit about Iraq’s elections that Abdul Mehdi pulled off the record.
Wants U.S. disengagement and more mature, but privileged, relationship with U.S. Abdul Mehdi said that the bilateral relations were moving towards a “more mature” phase, andhe stressed that the Obama administration’s “disengagement policy corresponds to exactly what we want.” This probably disappointed some of the policy analysts in the room, some of whom have advocated an extended, years-long U.S. presence that goes beyond troop withdrawal timelines agreed to in the U.S.-Iraq security agreement. Iraqi leaders have been reasserting their sovereignty for years now, and too many Beltway analysts still ignore the reality that Iraqis want control of their country back. They still delude themselves that the United States can constructively direct Iraqi politics through foreign military sales and security force training programs.
Abdul Mehdi did make the customary pitch that Iraq is a strategic country for the United States in the region, and he also expects “we both will need privileged relations with each other.” When asked about the size of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad – with reports of expansion plans not receiving much attention – the vice president said he “can’t imagine just a simple U.S. embassy in Iraq.”
The vice president also raised the importance of economic ties between Iraq and the United States and expressed disappointment that U.S. firms have not invested more in Iraq.
“I wish oil companies would have been more aggressive than Chinese companies,” he said. This concern – that the United States isn’t moving quickly enough to build more comprehensive economic and cultural ties with Iraq in addition to the military-to-military relationship as outlined in the bilateral strategic framework agreement – is becoming a common refrain from Iraqi leaders I’ve met recently.
On Iran.
Abdul Mehdi, who noted that on his way back to Iraq he will go via Iran as he often does, said that the United States and Iran were “in many cases, the only two countries that supported Iraq.”
He highlighted his personal involvement in arranging direct meetings between the United States and Iraq, a “mediation” role he has talked
about publicly before. Many forget that the Bush administration allowed direct
engagement between U.S. and Iranian diplomats in Iraq.
The diplomatic impasse with Iran over its nuclear program continues, and Abdul Mehdi offered little on what he thought regarding Iran’s internal fights. He noted that for decades, Iran was not a “friendly part of regional policies,” and that it was important to try to “domesticate Iran within the rules of the game.” He also noted that “if Iran wants to make the days of U.S. troops in Iraq a hell, they can do so.”
Much more was said, in particular about the upcoming elections and recent barring of nearly 500 candidates from the elections as well as the continued swirling rumors about the possibility of a military coup in Iraq. Iraq has faded from the headlines recently, but as I've noted in recent pieces including this one, many issues remain unresolved and Iraq is bound to jump back up higher on the priority list in 2010.
Iraq Needs to Become Relevant Again
If Iraq truly wants to get America's attention, the best thing they could do is play a mediating role between the United States and Iran. Geographically it makes sense; the country is in the very heart of the Middle East and is a main staging ground for regional trade. This approach would certainly work from a strategic standpoint as well; Baghdad has been trying to rebuild its repitoire and credibility with its neighbors...particularly an Iran that holds a vast amount of influence in Southern Iraq. And to be honest, the Iraqi Government needs all the help it can get. P.M. Maliki's spat with Syria over Sunni insurgents and Iraq's short standoff with Iranian forces on the border (over oil of all things) serves to shore up this claim.
In retrospect, a mediation role would serve Iraq in two ways. First off, it would boost Iraq as a cooperative and diplomatic force in the eyes of Washington. Secondly, it would ease the concerns and historical animosity between Baghdad and Tehran in countless ways. It may even have the potential of bringing Iraq into the global spotlight at just the right time, thereby enhancing their trade and security alliances.
This recommendation is obviously easier said than done. Iran may not acquiesce. The United States will probably look the other way, given the nuclear stalemate. But if the Obama administration intends to follow its "mutual interest and mutual respect" platform, then using Iraq as a mediator may be the best way to do this, absent direct talks with the Islamic Republic.
It is time for Iraq to think out side the box.
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
http://www.twitter.com/mideastblogger
Mediating with Iran and Iraqi Elections
I think the problem with Iraq mediating between the U.S. and Iran right now is that Iraq is so caught up in internal differences right now that it can't. Everyone is still stiring their pot (both domestic and foreign actors), so they don't have the capacity, organization, nor unity to act as a moderator between Washington and Tehran. That might happen later on, but probably years from now until they get their own problems worked out.
Marc,
I wish you had mentioned some more things about Mehdi's views on the upcoming elections in your post. Mehdi's National Alliance has nothing to sell itself on except for being Shiite and beging against Maliki. They're also the most pro-iran big list out there which puts them at a disadvantage with the Iraq public. Yet Mehdi's SIIC just went to Kurdistan to solidify their alliance, and there's constant rumors about the National Alliance and Maliki getting back together after elections to form a new government. It would be nice to get Mehdi's views on some of these issues.
I think Iraq will remain for some time to come, the zone of conflict between the USA and Iran, and the movement on the barometer of tension, between them will very likely be reflected on the Iraqi scene, either in the next elections or even by proxy violence.
khairi janbek.paris/france
And all this time I thought it was "all about oil"?
So how come Iraq is complaining that US company's are not aggressive enough?
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE