Al-Jazeera Discusses Chances of US Dialogue With Iran, Syria
Doha Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television in Arabic at 1830 gmt on 28 February carries live a new episode of its daily “Behind the News” programme. Today’s episode, presented by Layla al- Shaykhali in Doha, is devoted to discussing “the reasons and dimensions of the sudden change in the US policy towards sitting with Iran and Syria at one table to discuss the situation in Iraq.” Guests of the programme via satellite from Washington are Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Dr Amr Hamzawi, a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The programme begins with a three-minute report over video by Amir Siddiq on “the background of the US desire to open dialogue with Iran and Syria,” starting with US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s statement that “the Iranians are willing to enter discussions with the United States about Iraq.”
The anchorwoman then asks Clawson why Washington has finally decided to hold dialogue with Tehran and Damascus after having repeatedly refused to do so in the past. Speaking in English with simultaneous translation into Arabic, Clawson says: “The Iraqi government has proposed these talks and the United States told the Iraqi government that before there can be talks with a large group of countries, including Iraq’s neighbours, it will be better if Iraq first agrees to enact the oil law. That law has now been approved and passed. Therefore, the United States said it would help Iraq arrange this meeting, which will include about 20 countries and international organizations. It will discuss a broad set of issues. This is not a US initiative and certainly it is not a meeting between the United States and both Iran and Syria.”
On whether the United States was waiting for such a proposal from the Iraqi Government, Hamzawi says: “The United States has heard such proposals from the Iraqi Government for some time now. The need to coordinate economic, political, oil, and security affairs with Iraq’s neighbours has been going on since the start of US presence there. Nevertheless, this administration has always refused to sit at the table of negotiations with the Iranians and Syrians. Therefore, we are now before the start of a real change in US policy. We should not exaggerate its importance, but also not downplay it and say the meeting will be ceremonial.” He adds that the United States pressed for the attendance of other international parties.
Asked if he agrees with the Daily Telegraph’s opinion that “this is a humiliating but necessary step backward,” Clawson says: “At the moment there are very few ambassadors in Iraq and there are very few countries involved in economic aid projects in Iraq. This meeting is designed by the Iraqi Government to encourage other countries to set up embassies in Iraq and to start more economic aid projects in Iraq. That is the agenda that we saw the last time this group of countries met at the foreign ministers’ level in Sharm al-Shaykh in Egypt in 2004. At that time, the US secretary of state sat next to the Iranian foreign minister but the goal of the meeting was not holding contacts between the United States and Iran but the way to help Iraq. That is the agenda of this initiative by Iraq as well.”
Asked if Washington will hear something new from Tehran and Damascus during the Baghdad meeting, Clawson says: “Iran has a large embassy in Iraq and it was quite active in economic development activities, so Iran was somehow helpful to Iraq. But there are other things Iran is doing and these destabilize the country, particularly the flow of arms across the border from Iran into Iraq. But I am not at all sure that the flow of arms will be discussed at this meeting because this meeting will involve countries like Canada, Italy, and China. It will involve a large group of countries to discuss the general question of how to help Iraq and not the specific issues related to the Iranian-Iraqi relationship like the presence of Iranian arms inside Iraq.”
On the reasons for this “qualitative change” in Washington’s policy towards Iran and Syria, Hamzawi says: “I believe that some of the reasons are related to the situation inside Iraq. The new security plan or strategy has not achieved the anticipated successes although only a short time has elapsed on it. The most important result is that the United States has discovered the depth of Iranian penetration and influence in Iraq. Besides, the United States is currently met with regional initiatives from various Arab and Islamic parties.” He adds: “Regional diplomacy is filling the vacuum left by the US diplomacy. The third issue is related to the internal US situation. There is pressure from the Democratic Party and this pushes for a return to the table of negotiations even with the enemies of the United States.” He then says “agreeing to sit at the table of negotiations with the Iranians and Syrians denotes a qualitative change in US policy.”
The programme then airs two brief interviews with Ahmad al-Haj Ali, a Syrian political analyst in Damascus, and Mashallah Shams-al- Wa’izin, an adviser at the Middle East Centre for Strategic Studies in Tehran, on the way the Syrians and Iranians view the reasons which prompted Washington to agree to the participation of Syria and Iran in the Baghdad meeting. Ali says: “As a result of its policies, the United States has been locked in an extremely difficult impasse. It has deliberately ignored Syria’s role in regional affairs, specifically the Iraqi issue, for a long time.” Shams-al-Wa’izin says he expects the Iranian nuclear programme to top the US-Iranian agenda, adding that Iran will try to obtain “security assurances that the United States will not take any action against the Iranian security positions and those related to its nuclear programme.” He adds that “this will be followed by Iran’s participation in the new regional system which will be based on respect for Iran’s regional position.”
The anchorwoman then tells Hamzawi that the United States says it will neither hold talks with Iran and Syria nor relinquish any of its positions. She then asks him if the United States expects these two countries to cooperate with it for nothing. Responding, he says what the United States says is “an attempt to divert attention from the change that is really taking place in US policy towards the two countries.” He adds that the United States “seeks to obtain concessions from the Iranians and Syrians in order to control the security situation” in Iraq. He then says the sanctions the UN Security Council imposed on Iran may not be intensified if Iran helps the United States stabilize the security situation in Iraq.
Asked about the issues the three countries can agree on with regard to Iraq without abandoning their principles or positions, Clawson says: “All three countries have an interest in seeing greater stability in Iraq. Turmoil in Iraq is causing a flood of refugees into Syria and this is hard for Syria. Instability in Iraq has also spilled over into Iran, which has recently seen some terrorist bombings in the southeastern areas near the border with Iraq. Therefore, Syria, Iran, and the United States all have a common interest in greater stability in Iraq. Let us hope they can all work for that end.”
Commenting on the same issue, Hamzawi says: “The US Administration has to realize that seeking Iranian and Syrian assistance to achieve stability in Iraq is not enough although it is in the interest of the two countries to have relative stability in Iraq. There is tension in US relations with Iran and Syria.” He adds: “The Iranian nuclear file, the issue of recognizing Iran’s role, and the Arab-Israeli conflict are important national security issues for the two countries. They will not miss the opportunity of resuming talks with the United States to raise these issues. The United States really needs the help of these two countries in Iraq. It is facing a no-win situation in Iraq. The United States is facing a civil war in Iraq and I doubt that the security plan will lead to any real progress. Help by Iran and Syria may lead to talks about a way out or a reasonable exit strategy for the Americans. The United States really needs them and will certainly make partial rather than radical concessions if this policy and this change continue.”
The anchorwoman then asks Clawson if President Bush will hold negotiations with “his enemies” if his plan succeeds in Iraq. Responding, he says: “The key determinant of the situation in Iraq is going to be what the Iraqis themselves do to improve the security situation in Iraq. The role of any outside countries whether it is the United States, Iran, or Syria is only secondary compared to the contribution of the Iraqis themselves.”
Hamzawi then says the United States “knows that the [security] plan will not succeed or its chances of success are very slim and that the United States is in a real impasse in and outside Iraq.” Therefore, he adds, “it is looking for solutions by returning to the table of negotiations.” Asked if the United States is thus negotiating from a position of weakness, he says: “Yes, because the US Middle East policy led to alliances and unprecedented regional coordination. Saudi Arabia is holding negotiations with the Iranians and looking for joint solutions to various issues. This is something that was not expected by this administration.” He adds: “The United States or the US project is in a dilemma and it is now trying to rescue what can be rescued and seek a way out of Iraq and the region as a whole. This is done from a position of weakness.”
Asked how this “position of weakness” will help the United States out of “its dilemma,” Clawson says: “The biggest crisis in the Middle East right now is the crisis facing the Iraqi people and the biggest international need is to find a way to help the Iraqi people enjoy security and stability. Yes, that will help the United States quite a bit, but it will also help the region even more. Therefore, it will be unfortunate if people in the Middle East or the world think they are doing the United States a favour by helping Iraq. In fact, they are principally helping Iraq and themselves by reducing instability that may spill over Iraq to its neighbours.”
(c) 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.