Page 1 of
3 A US detour via Syria to
Iran By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - In the 1970s, the late Syrian
comedian Nihad Quali coined a famous phrase in
Syrian television when playing the role of a
confused journalist, trying to understand the
world around him by observing - for no reason -
events in Italy.
He would say, "If we want
to know what is happening in Italy, we need to
know what is happening in Brazil. And if we want
to know what is happening in Brazil, we need to
know what is happening
in
Italy!" His words were funny and illogical.
They can be applied to today's world,
however, and make much more sense when it comes to
Iraq. After all, if we want to know what is
happening in Iraq, we need to know what is
happening in Syria and Iran. And if we want to
know what is happening in the United States, we
have to know what is happening in Iraq.
It
is because of Iraq that the US administration has
increased its campaign against both Syria and Iran
since 2003. Four years later, it is because of
Iraq that the United States finds itself obliged
to sit and talk with both these states.
This culminated in the security conference
in Baghdad last weekend. The Syrians, the
Iranians, the Saudis and the Americans were there.
Some see this as a great breakthrough and a U-turn
in US President George W Bush's attitude toward
the Middle East. Although US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice insisted that the conference was
the brainchild of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki,
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said it
could not have been done without US approval,
adding that it was a "very small but important
step to break the ice and establish a true
dialogue between America, Iran and Syria".
This was the first time since the Iraq war
started in 2003 that Bush had agreed that members
of his administration could sit face-to-face with
Syria and Iran to solve Iraq's numerous problems.
Despite all the denial and rough talk of the US
administration, this is new to Washington. Some
expected a high level of corridor diplomacy to
take place in Baghdad, particularly between the US
and the Iranians over the latter's nuclear
program. US officials, mainly Zalmay Khalilzad,
the ambassador to Iraq, have denied these
speculations, saying that discussions were open
and public and dealt only with Iraq.
This
was echoed by Mohammad Ali Husseini, the spokesman
for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among
other things, the conference discussed leaving
security affairs to the Iraqi government,
arranging a timetable for the departure of foreign
forces and taking steps to disarm militias and
combat terrorism. While they were meeting, at
least two mortar shells landed near the Iraqi
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, despite grand
security measures, showing just how much
counter-terrorism measures are needed in Baghdad.
Despite numerous press reports debating
whether the conference was ceremonial and cosmetic
or substantial, not much has been leaked on what
exactly took place in Baghdad.
And the
winner is ... The Iranians are clearly
pleased at the new US realization that events in
Iraq can only be solved through the help of
Tehran. These were the first public talks between
the two countries since they cooperated on
Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
The US, very unintentionally, greatly
served Iran's interests by toppling its No 1
enemy, Saddam Hussein, in 2003, and replacing him
with a group of Shi'ite politicians largely
supported by, created by or affiliated with the
Iranian government. Four years into the
occupation, the US has been unable to challenge
the Iranians in Iraq - much to the displeasure of
Bush.
All warnings by US officials that
these Shi'ite politicians would not trade their
relationship with Tehran for a marriage of
convenience with Washington fell on deaf ears at
the White House in 2003. Iran at the time was more
willing to yield to US pressure, under the
leadership of reformist president Mohammad
Khatami, than it is today under President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad.
In the spring of 2003, Iran
sent a message to the US requesting unconditional
talks. It wanted to place all issues on the table,
ranging from Palestine to Iraq to Lebanon and
Iran's nuclear program. Khatami proposed
suspending uranium enrichment in exchange for
commencing talks with the US.
According to
Aria Mehrabi, a member of the leadership council
of the New America Foundation, this proposal
reached the State Department and was read by Flynt
Leverett, the Middle East adviser at the National
Security Council. He forwarded it to his
superiors, but the proposal died there and Rice,
then national security adviser, claimed to have
never received it. The Iranians did not resend.
Why should they? The war played out in
their favor. Tehran watched as sectarian violence
swept Iraq. It condemned the chaos but never
claimed that it was incapable of ending it. On the
contrary, time seemed on its side in 2003-06. The
US
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
