JOURNAL: A political "fix" for Iraq?

The current US solution for Iraq is founded on the belief that it is possible to staunch Iraq's chaos through a political "fix" that involves direct negotiations with Iran. Unfortunately, the truth is more complicated. Iraq's non-state guerrillas aren't mere proxies of Iran. Instead, they are largely autonomous.

First, these groups don't rely upon Iran for their operating income since they can manufacture income through participation in black globalization's multi-trillion dollar economy. A classic example of this is the decentralized and open source marketplace for the transnational smuggling of gasoline. In a June 2006 report, Ali Al Alak (the inspector general of the Iraqi Oil Ministry) detailed how guerrillas and militias were using the calculated disruption of Iraqi pipelines/refineries, the arbitrage of government subsidies for gasoline, and bribes/hijackings/tampering to generate nearly $100 million a month in income from imported gasoline (30% of Iraq's total fuel imports).

Second, this income provides these groups with the ability to fund their own violence. For example, they can purchase weapons from global arms markets (more black globalization) and hire local mercenaries (to fuel the marketplace for IED attacks and hire militiamen). From the perspective of these groups, an Iranian puppet state is as much a threat to their continued existence as a US dominated Iraqi government. Vive le chaos!

Comments

[Claymore]

By the nutts...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran16nov16,0,7641580.story?coll=la-home-world

[subadei]

It's funny. One of the biggest arguments I hear against troop redeployment (to Kurdistan or elsewhere)usually has the "Shiastan joins Iran" principle (or something relative) at its core.
That our leadership shares this essentially myopic view of Arab/Persian relations is troubling.

[ramsis]

i do believe that the Iraqi shias are not as loyal to Iran as many think but there is obvious support for militias in the south. will militias continue to exsist without Iranian support? of course but it could be one less avenue that they will be able to exploit. perhaps the u.s feels that this will have the same results that saddam got when he struck a deal with the shah in the 70s that ended the Kurdish insugency.Besides anytime the U.S and Iran have something to talk about and not something to fight about is aa good thing?

[Glen Tomkins]

Why we need to talk to Iran

Iran admittedly probably can't help us very much to end either the insurgency or the civil war in Iraq. But the security of the large numbers of our troops in Iraq trying to do these things, is increasingly dependent on Iran not breaking bad on us. The Iranians seem to have gotten the point that the only chance an enemy of the US has to maintain any sort of deep-attack capability against US forces is to eschew manned aircraft in favor of survivable alternatives, such as RPVs, SSMs and cruise missiles. Yes, the US has far more deep attack resources to bring to bear to root out even highly survivable assets of theirs, but, more than counter-balancing this, our forces in Iraq are infinitely more dependent on maintaining air assets ready to bail out the ground troops as needed, as well as the whole raft of service support that is also highly vulnerable to deep strike. If they took out Balad, forced our carriers out of the Gulf, and politically neutralized Incirlik, our ground forces in Iraq would be in a very bad spot.

[Claymore]

Most of Iranian oil and gas fields are either along the Iraqi border, along the gulf coast, or their territorial borders in the "Arabian Gulf" (LOL)- land that is occupied by predominantly Arabs- some of which are Iraq exiles from Saddams regime.

By the Nutts....

[dano]

And moving a bit east to Afghanistan, the illicit opium trade is lucrative. 2004 saw the highest area under culvtivation ever. 2005 saw a drop, though mostly due to weather. As of August 2006 the area under cultivation was already 50% higher than 2004, which had been the highest in history. There is so much on the open market that prices are falling. The income is going to warlords and jihadi groups.

[Former Republican]

"Unfortunately, the truth is more complicated. Iraq's non-state guerrillas aren't mere proxies of Iran. Instead, they are largely autonomous."

I expect a lot of people realize this. I suggest the thinking may be that we need (a) to confine the war to Iraq, and (b) to have Iraq's civil war burn out as soon as possible. On this basis, we need the cooperation of all neighboring countries. Iran can't control Iraqi Shiites, but it can agree not to intervene on their behalf if the Sunnis look like they're winning.

Whether it's possible to get a useful agreement is another matter. Given the fix we are in, it would be foolish not to explore the possiblity.

[adam]

FormerRepublican,

I agree completely with the idea that Iran and Syria are going to need to be brought in.

I note in passing that elements in the Iraqi government may already be doing this - Iraq re-established diplomatic relations with Syria after a 2 decade hiatus this week. The Syrian embassy is expected to re-open soon. The upshot is that Iran, Syria and Turkey are working together on Iraq, by implication leaving the US and her useful allied dictatorships Kuwait and the Saudis in the cold. Understandably the US is not happy about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21iraq.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

However any attempt by the US to reorganise the resurgent Iran-Iraq-Syria dynamics has a number of issues. I would suggest that these are:
a) whether the Israelis will support the US position; Israel will be very unhappy at the US working with the Syrians and Iranians
b) whether the US is willing to pay the price that will be demanded by Iran or Syria. Iran will demand its nuclear power stations, Syria will demand Lebanon.
c) whether the Kurdish forces will support this (Iraq fought at least 4 wars against the Kurds from 1932-1970 so another one soon isn't unreasonable)
d) And this one I have to admit is the finisher - is there any group or groups in the vortex that is now Iraq able to pull together? In October 3,700 Iraqi civilians died - that's 10 times 9/11 in US terms. Even so, the politicians in the US formed government of national unity have no reason to work together.

[MDE]

No, Moqtada al-Sadr does not want to be a puppet of Iran, but he does get tons of advice, technical expertise, an occasional spanking and his "left-and-right limits" from Iran. Actually he gets them mostly via the Iranian IRGC front organizations and agencies, but every once in a while he gets them direct from the liaison agents from the Guardian Council. He also gets funding for specified tasks and projects from the IRGC. He also draws from the Hezbollah-associated pool of fighters from Lebanon for the more demanding jobs which his home-grown fighters can't be associated with or are too dumb to undertake. Without the explicit support from Iran and the implicit support from al-Sistani, his party would dwindle. A little backbone in the Executive Branch of the Iraq government would help, too.

What I want to know is why we stopped engaging al-Sistani and that whole side of Iraqi Shiism. He is a moderate who does not want control of Iraq (though he does enjoy what he's got), but his power base is still threatened by al-Sadr. I think he has kept silent because he sees how much we neutered ourselves and won't align with the weak Americans.

Bringing Iran and Syria in is laughable. Only through variable degrees of coercion will those two hedgemon-wannabes be controlled to the point of being politically acceptable. Given the larger Islamic goals (which are strongly shared by Iran's Guardian Council and the "Monkey" himself -- Ahmadinejad), they will only use our diplomatic overtures as a distraction against us to maintain or even accelerate their timetables for everything they want to do and indeed are doing. As for Syria, they enjoy the level of influence they have in their neighborhood and would never do anything to lessen that. Chaos in Iraq and Lebanon is what they want since they can not control either one. Those on the East and West, with a politically self-imposed neutered Turkey to the north, and the ever-wrong and always off-balance tightrope-walker Jordan to the south, they have their bases covered. The fact that we won't go public with the most heinous evidence of their manipulation of Iraq and Lebanon will only serve to reinforce this behavior.

Iran's counter to our power-projection capabilities only has a relatively small technological arm to it, though it is growing. Their primary strength resides in their asymmetric human capabilities (via the Iraqi militias, the western warloards in Afghanistan and Hezbollah and its very far-reaching capabilities past Africa and into the Americas. Their under-the-radar support for al-Qaida and its associated movements between South Asia and the Middle East is nothing to laugh at, either.

All that being said, Iran does realize it is vulnerable and would be unable to repel an American attack, or even retaliate in a meaningful way, other than in the propaganda campaign which they would win, mostly due to our own self-defeatism and the hate-America-ism in Europe and everywhere else.

For their future actions, I can see them aliging with more groups to extend their reach -- like the Hektmatyar i-GHulbuddin in NE Afghanistan and the GSPC in Africa (even if it is a Sunni Group). They already have routes across North and Sub-Saharan Africa that I suspect take advantage of common cahracteristics and goals.

For our future actions, we need to exploit organizations like the NCRI/PMOI to get our asymmetric fingers around their neck.

Glen, we could lose all that you listed and more and our ground forces would not be in a "bad spot." You over-estimate the value of air-power (apologies to John) in a counter-insurgency fight. Look at Vietnam: we dropped more bombs there than in WW2 and it made no difference. Even the US Marines, who treat themselves like cannon-fodder, would still be able to beat everything they came up against hands-down. Everything.

[stevelaudig]

ROI story in the NYT, Sunday. 96Billion versus 200 million. It seems the resistance is self-financing while the occupation isn't.

Hussein is beginning to look like he planned for the long haul. Is "Fiasco" a strong enough term?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26insurgency.html?ei=5094&en=2a2a5b9d24a4cf05&hp=&ex=1164517200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

[MDE]

here is some open-source stuff from today: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,232262,00.html

It explains one aspect of the direct support that Hezbollah provides to Moqtada's "Mehdi" army. Gang of hoodlums is more apt, but it doesn't sound as scary.

[adam]

MDE,

You've raised a lot of good points.

The US didn't work with Sistani because the amateurish and highly ideological (Republican, neo-con, pro-Israeli) Bremer team completely misunderstood that Iraq was a majority Shia country. Sistani himself always refused to work with the Americans as he saw the invasion as illegal and immoral. He has refused to meet Americans from the occupying forces (which was fine with Bremer, who didn't want to meet with him). Sistani also has returned letters from Bush unread. Sistani was quite willing to work with the UN, but that ended when insurgents blew the UN HQ in Bagdhad apart.

"Bringing Iran and Syria in is laughable. Only through variable degrees of coercion will those two hedgemon-wannabes be controlled to the point of being politically acceptable."

First, since when did Iran want hegemony? Thats the US position, as expressed by the PNAC, and agreed to by the Bush clan and Rumsfeld:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

But after that I have a question: acceptable to who? Shi'a Iraq came in play for Iran on the day that the Iraqi exiles who had been in Iran returned. The US was able to field around 80 exiles (out of an original plan to train 7,000). Iran put 15,000 exiles from the Badr Corps into Iraq. This was, of course, back in the days of Chalabi.

Chalabi himself was probably always an Iranian agent. His bank that failed in Jordan (and left him dodging international fraud cases around the world) was laundering money for the Iranian war effort via Switzerland to the tune of around $300m. To show how complicated the Middle East can be Chalabi's nephew - a judge in the Sadaam trial - works for an Israeli West Bank law firm called Zell and Feith. Douglas Feith, of Iraq invasion planning fame, is a Senior partner there and he's known to be a mad-keen Likudnik / Kadima supporter.

So for us to say now that Iran shouldn't be involved is a little late - agents (unkindly: spies) of both Iran and Israel were instrumental in the creating the policy for, and the subsequent planning of, the invasion from day one.

Which brings us back to the question of politically acceptable. Who are the negotiations acceptable to. To the US? To Israel? To the Badr Corps or SCIRI? To any of the countless other players in Iraq? (as neither Syria nor Iran control the Sunni resistance).

The reality for any Iraqi civil war is that Iran is right next door, has a functional government, maintains close contacts with a number of Iraqi factions, has no other foreign entanglements, and has a population three times the size of Iraq. Its going to have a say in Iraq whether the US likes it or not. I should add that everyone knew that this would occur from day one, it just that it appears that neither Bush nor the Pentagon can read a map.

"Chaos in Iraq and Lebanon is what they want since they can not control either one."

Syria controlled Lebanon for several years and far more successfully than the Israelis did during their periods of occupation. You'll note that the post-civil war rebuilding of Lebanon occured in the Syrian period, whilst the destruction of Iraq and Lebanon occured in the US / Israeli war-periods.

To reverse your argument as the US and Israel appear to be unable to control either nation it could be argued that the US wants chaos in Iraq and Lebanon. In the case of Bush/Olmert I prefer the stupidity, cruelty and incompetance theory, but to people living in the area they'd at least like there to be a reason for their lives to be destroyed.

"The fact that we won't go public with the most heinous evidence of their manipulation of Iraq and Lebanon will only serve to reinforce this behavior."

The fact that no-one would really believe the US at this stage is something of a flaw for presentation of heinous evidence. The US flushed its moral authority away in the silly WMD fiasco. Lets be honest here, we've now found more WMD materials in Sushi bars in Kensington than in Iraq and no-ones bombing Knightsbridge.

And what exactly is the US going to accuse anyone of? Its comical that the US is complaining about manipulation of Iraq and Lebanon when the US and her allies have invaded both.

Once the laughter has finished kind people might gently point out that explosions followed by thousands of troops and thousands of dead civilians isn't a manipulation, its somewhat more than that.

Nastier people might note that the US doesn't half whine when it gets its todger stuck in the goat. This is the thing that Powell was trying to explain to Bush - you broke it, you bought it.

"All that being said, Iran does realize it is vulnerable and would be unable to repel an American attack, or even retaliate in a meaningful way, other than in the propaganda campaign which they would win, mostly due to our own self-defeatism and the hate-America-ism in Europe and everywhere else."

As Kraus notes war is first the hope that we will be better off and ends when we realise that everyone is worse off.

Secondly there is no chance that the US will achieve its military objectives in Iraq. Thats not defeatism, its simply reality. There is no possibility of the people of say Ramadi (currently enjoying a re-invasion after US troops attacked Salafi rebels) will suddenly say that the people bombing and shelling them are good people. Back in the quiet days of 2003 before Fallujah 2 only around 20 per cent of people in Sunni areas said that its OK to kill Americans, now its 70%. I'd suggest that this number is going up, not down.

Currently I'd expect the US to fail to achieve its objectives in Iran - if it has any. It would be fair to say that the US is unable to coherently explain what its goals in Iraq are, and we've already invaded there. We'd then reasonably expect Iran to cripple key areas of world trade in return. Its only world trade that is currently enabling the US to afford the war. This would tend to mean that we have lost before we've even started so its probably best not to start.

In short we can bomb Iran, its just that we don't know what for, or what we expect to get out of it, and we certainly don't like the price attached.

"For our future actions, we need to exploit organizations like the NCRI/PMOI to get our asymmetric fingers around their neck."

Errrm. Assuming that you mean NCRI which is part of the MEK which is a husband and wife led Iranian Marxist terrorist group that the Iraqis backed in the 1980s, Sadaam used to clear up the Shi'ite rebellion in 1991, ran a torture complex for the Americans in 2005, and which remains currently listed by the US state department as a terrorist group - then can you explain why you think that:

a) they're going to be successful (they lost in the 1980s against Iran when Iran was distracted in fighting the longest war of the 20th Century)
b) why, if they win, they'll love America (Bin Laden is a shining example of how CIA trained operatives feel gratitude, Hamas is an alternative example of how Israel used terrorists. I suspect that most people would agree that both cases are failures)

As a followup to b) the PMOI are the same people that did the US Embassy takeover in Iran in 1979. They also assassinated a number of US military personnel during this period. Thats going to be hellishly embarrassing in the US when it pops out. At least the Contras only dealt drugs to poor black people, the PMOI/NCRI actually hurt middle-class suit-wearing US diplomats. The whole issue is simply not going to play well at the inevitable congressional hearings.

I also have to admit there is a c).

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html

"Even the US Marines, who treat themselves like cannon-fodder, would still be able to beat everything they came up against hands-down. Everything."

Until the food, ammo, water, fuel and countless other things that a military force needs to operate ran out. The US still does not control its supply lines in Iraq and with the UK pulling out of Shi'ite (Virtue Party controlled) Basra in (March?) next year the situation isn't going to improve. Actually I'm reminded of the following: "Horses aren't patriots, when men will fight without bread, horses demand oats". I'll say the US can beat the Iraqi resistance, like any regular military force against guerillas, its just that they can't win.

Fun fact: the original CIA plan for Iraq was named after the ten thousand Greek mercenaries who got cut off in Iraq and had to fight their way out successfully - but losing thousands of troops, never getting paid, and leaving the enemy in charge... Starts to sound familiar...

As for the NYT/Fox News story it relies on American ignorance of Iraq and geography (and the credibility of unnamed US officials - as a guess probably Cheney) in order to gain traction. Simply in order to get people from Lebanon to Shi'ite Iraq is a major undertaking today as that involves going through the Sunni resistance areas which for most Shi'ite men would simply mean torture and eventual death.

More to the point why go to Lebanon when Iran is right next door? Open access, no real border patrols on the Iraqi side of the border, and Basra has a very good road with a taxi service. My guess is that its intended as a spoiler story to stop negotiations and improve the standing of the Cheney camp against the adults of the Bush group.

[Azr@el]

At this point in the game the only remaining political card to be played by the u.s. administration, any u.s. administration is dialog with the iranians. There is no purely iraqi solution to iraq's problems. Sadr's fracturing "mahdi army" is often considered to be the largest militia in iraq by the woefully ignorant media but in reality the most effective elements of the mahdi army are just sock puppets for the badr brigade. The badr brigade and some mahdi army trained by imaginary hizb-e-allah carpet baggers are iran's chosen side in any shia on shia power dispute. I think even the slowest frat boy in washington is starting to come around to the notion that the power brokers that can transform iraq from a complete loss to a draw reside in tehran.
But i doubt in the extreme that the bush adminstration will try to engage the iranians in any meaningful dialog. The mentality in washington is the mentality of high school students. Bush and his crew see themselves as the kewl kids, i.e. the kewl clique. The iranians , north koreans , syrians , etc are the geeks or the goths, basically they're the un-kewl kids. And of course the kewl kids can't be seen talking to the un-kewl kids, that just wouldn't be kewl. If the current state of international affair wasn't so akin to a slow speed multi-car pile up it would be hilarious.

[adam]

I'm definately stealing the "Bush at High School" description of the Middle East, its simply a perfect analogy. And it made me smile.