Unclenching the fist

February 9 2009


Unclenching the fist into an offered hand


THE Obama administration is willing to talk to Iran. That is what President Barack Obama's number two Joe Biden stated in the first landmark foreign policy speech of the new administration in his address to world leaders at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
While the speech contained a marked change in tone from the Bush administration, it contained few major new policy initiatives indicating that the Obama administration does not intend to shift tracks on most international issues such as missile defence in Europe, the crisis in Georgia etc.
On the Iran front, the Obama administration's position is that the options before Tehran are clear: Either it abandons its nuclear programme and its support for "terrorism," or face "pressure and isolation."
The world could only wish it was as simple as that. Washington and Tehran remain far apart on most issues, regional and international, after three decades of open hostility and the Iranian regime is unlikely to bow to either demand if only because the high moral ground that the US has adopted for itself.
Tehran's stand in the nuclear dispute is that it is exercising its right to engage in peaceful nuclear activities as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There is no concrete evidence that Iran is engaged in developing nuclear weapons as the US and Israel are alleging. However, most people around the world know that Iran would speed away in that direction when its nuclear programme reaches the right point. That is an issue of great concern to the entire region.
On the "terrorism" front, the world knows the US is referring to alleged Iranian links with the Iraq insurgency and groups like Lebanon's Hizbollah and Palestine's Hamas. Most definitely, it would be impossible for Tehran and Washington to see eye-to-eye to determine who is a "terrorist."
Indeed, a majority of the world community cannot accept the US definition of terrorism and terrorist, particularly in the Middle Eastern context. That is also a no-go area for Tehran and Washington.
Perhaps the US should give more careful attention to the position stated by Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani at the Munich conference one day before Biden spoke.
Larijani spoke of a "golden opportunity for
the United States" — implying that if the Obama administration goes far enough in conciliatory signals Tehran could positively.
Particularly interesting was Larijani's call on the US to switch "to a chess game instead of a boxing match." It meant that Tehran would be receptive to more subtle US negotiating tactics.
In a private meeting on Saturday with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana , Larijani reportedly rejected the US policy of "carrot and stick."
Clearly, the signals coming from Larijani show that his country is expecting a better fine-tuned diplomatic approach from the West than offers of blandishments coupled with threats.
Biden gave no indication that Washington had heard the Iranian message loud and clear. Instead, he and other Western leaders attending the Munich forum opted to offer an "unclenched fist" that could turn
into an extended hand if the Iranians backed down.
This is the clincher. Iran's post-revolution history shows that warnings and threats would not work with the Iranians. Military action against Iran would have unpredictable repercussions in the region and beyond — no one except Israel wants it anyway.
Surely, there should be a position between the "unclenched fist" and the "extended hand" and that could be the best the West could embrace while dealing with the Iranians.

No more high horses in Iraq

February 8 2009

No more high horses in Iraq


THE IRAQI government says that the US military is not respecting the status of forces agreement signed in December that includes a clause that calls for co-ordination with the Iraqi authorities before operations targeting Iraqis.
In one such incident, American soldiers killed and shot an Iraqi couple in their home near Kirkuk in northern Iraq and wounded their eight-year-old daughter. In another, American soldiers shot and killed an elderly Iraqi man outside Kirkuk. Whatever the circumstances under which the US soldiers opened fire, there was no consideration that exempted the US military from the requirement to co-ordinate with local Iraqi authorities.
In both cases, American soldiers simply stormed the residences of the victims and opened fire. Local police said they had no prior knowledge of the raids. Iraqi policemen who went to the scenes of attack were prevented from entering the area by American soldiers.
This a blatant violation of the provision in the status of forces agreement calling for American troops to have “full co-ordination with Iraqi authorities” ahead of any operation targeting Iraqis. The US military is continuing as if no such agreement exists and is pressing ahead with operations as the case was before the signing of the accord in December after months of haggling.
Some reports indicate that US Special Forces units are carrying out arbitrary attacks against Iraqis without informing the local Iraqi authorities. The US military commanders in the areas where the attacks took place saying that they were not informed in advance of the raids.
Whatever might be the reason, such behaviour sparks anger among Iraqis, including those who co-operate with the US military in the anti-insurgency battle in the country. That is indeed a serious challenge since the elements are in place for a full-scale resumption of a war of resistance against the US. If that happens, then out goes any chance of a US departure from Iraq as called for in the status of forces agreement.
Parallel to that consideration is the fact that arbitrary American military operations against Iraqis weaken the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. Perhaps one of the reasons for the US violation of the agreement is that the US military does not want to be bound by any restriction in its operations in Iraq.
At the same time, the US might also want to clip the wings of the Iraqi government, particularly that Maliki's party emerged as the main winner in the recent provincial elections in the country. This has boosted Maliki, who has been consistently displaying increased measures of independence that has been disturbing to the US.
Whatever the reason, whatever the circumstance, the US military needs to support the authority of the Iraqi government rather than challenge it if the Obama administration were to hope for a smooth military withdrawal from Iraq as it has promised. The region is indeed pinning hopes that the Obama administration is serious and remains committed to the pledge. We are looking forward to a US departure from Iraq and the people of Iraq gaining full control of their lives. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of that prized goal even if it means that the US military has to climb down from its high horse.