'Tehran three-way' a diplomatic setback for America

Editor's note: Leon D'Souza, a graduate of the JCOM department, now serves America in uniform. He is a frequent guest contributor to the Hard News Cafe.

By Leon D'Souza

November 28, 2006 | Last week, while Bush administration insiders and confidants huddled in conference to hash out plans for an exit strategy in Iraq, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem got on a plane and flew to Baghdad.

His two-day mission would require a Herculean effort: Moallem was to mend fences with the Iraqis after more than two decades of mistrust, while assuring them of Syria's cooperation in policing its 370-mile desert border to keep Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda recruits from crossing over into Iraq.

It seemed like a tall order, especially since the two countries haven't seen eye to eye since 1982, when Damascus blamed its neighbor for inciting riots by hard-line Islamist groups in Syria. The country also sided with Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Healing the wounds of the past, it appeared, would require nothing short of a great diplomatic miracle.

Then, on Nov. 21, Moallem delivered just that.

Amid much fanfare, the Syrian minister declared the restoration of "full diplomatic relations" with Iraq, pledging simultaneously to commit his country's resources to "working on the security and stability" of its Muslim neighbor.

The announcement, while certainly a diplomatic coup for the tiny Arab state, came as something of a swift kick in the pants to White House hawks, still shilly-shallying about involving Iran and Syria in the peace process.

To them, the Syrians seemed to be saying this: the longer you take to decide whether or not to include us in the negotiating process, the more you risk writing yourselves out of a regional consensus that will inevitably emerge -- with or without your participation.

Part of that new accord will likely include an emphasis on curbing America's influence in the Arab world.

To be sure, Iraq is a piece of a "much bigger poker game," writes BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy. "What the Syrians want is no secret. They want the Americans to ease the pressure on them - for example, over the charge that they had a hand in the assassination last year of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri.

"The Syrians also want to be treated as an important player in efforts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Iran, too, is vying for a similar position.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hopes to use his country's sway over prominent Shiite clerics in Iraq to help demobilize the militias and death squads that have terrorized citizens since the beginning of the American occupation.

By playing such a pivotal role in brokering an Iraqi peace deal, Iran is confident it could establish itself as a mover and shaker in Middle East politics, weakening America's hold over regional affairs. A breakthrough, don't forget, would also improve its bargaining position in nuclear nonproliferation talks with the international community.

Iran and Syria, therefore, have every reason to make good on their assurances to the Iraqis.

The United States, regrettably, is the net loser in this diplomatic gambit.

If action stemming from three-party talks between Baghdad and its neighbors is successful in bringing about a perceptible change in the Iraqi street, American politicians will lose some of their ability to whisper into the ears of Iraq's new leadership. The withdrawal of U.S. forces will no longer be a threat for America to leverage but something the Iraqis themselves will demand.

While this will bring our troops home, it will in fact hurt America's clout in Iraq, leaving us vulnerable to future threats should the country slouch toward Shiite theocracy.

The only opportunity for us to salvage some diplomatic advantage under the circumstances is to be seen as helping the three-party negotiations along in some way -- or at least cheering them on from the sidelines. If we fail to do either, we will likely be viewed as part of the problem rather than a participant in the solution.

Skeptics in the Bush administration would do well to remember what the English novelist H.G. Wells once wrote about cynicism as it concerned momentous dealings.

"New and stirring things are belittled," Wells opined, "because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'"

RB
RB