Op-Ed Commentary

 

 

Our view:
Baker-Hamilton plan traps Pelosi and Hadley

 

Iran now faces certain defeat at the hands of Iraq. The Iraqi government
under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has sidelined Iraq's main pro-Iran
political party the SCIRI and its militia the Badr Brigades, in a direct
rebuff to US Ambassador Khalilzad, who has long supported SCIRI. Instead,
PM Minister al-Maliki, with backing from US National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley and National Security Director John Negroponte, has gone into
coalition with the Iraqi nationalist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. This is a
breakthrough for all Iraqi patriots who fear domination by Iran. Once
Iraq's Sunnis buy into this Maliki-Sadr coalition, which is inevitable, Iran
will suffer a crushing defeat in Iraq and beyond. Iraq will be the
graveyard for Ahmadinejad's dream of an Iranian/Persian empire astride the
world's supplies of oil.

Unfortunately, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, with its likely
recommendations for an early Middle East peace conference, and the early
withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, is about to snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory. Both proposals would play directly into Iran's hands and
inappropriately reward Iran for subverting Iraq, attacking Israel via
Hezbollah, disrupting the Middle East peace process, and defying the
international community over nuclear weapons development.

To put it another way, the number one threat in the Middle East is not the
stalled Middle East peace process, as Baker-Hamilton believe. In fact, this
very concept is a codeword for undermining Israeli security by extracting
dangerous unilateral concessions from Israel. No, the Middle East's major
challenge is the threat posed to regional stability by Iran's relentless
drive to annex Iraq, in whole or part, and from there move on to dominate
the region.

In this context, Baker Hamilton's calls for early US troop withdrawals from
Iraq, like their proposal for an early Middle East peace process, benefits
Iran. Today Iran, not Syria and the Sunni states, would benefit from an
early US withdrawal from Iraq. Thanks to US Ambassador Khalilzad, who
favors Tehran, Iran is positioned to fill the vacuum left by a US
withdrawal.

Moreover, given an early US withdrawal, Iran will be tempted to make its
move to annex Basra and southern Iraq. The annexation of southern Iraq
would be a coup for Iran for two reasons. First, Iraq would acquire in
Basra Iraq's only large port as well as the bulk of Iraq's energy resources.
Second, Iran's annexation of southern Iraq would ignite a full scale civil
war in what remains of Iraq, beginning in Baghdad. The civil war would be
fought between Kurds, Sunnis, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Shia, all adversaries of
Iran. The remaining US troops would be trapped in the middle of Iraq's
civil war, while Iran's own forces would be spared. Ahmadinejad would be
delirious with joy.

To summarize, four big losers will emerge under the Baker-Hamilton Plan --
the Democratic Party, which will be co-opted into advancing Iranian
interests in Iraq, and to destroy Israel; Syria and the Sunni Arab states,
who will face a far more powerful Iran that will now have implicit full
bi-partisan US support for its imperialist program; the Iraqi people, who
will have to fight a more belligerent Iran; and, finally US forces in Iraq,
who will find their new mission is to protect and advance Iranian interests
in Iraq.

In other words, the future Speaker of the House, Rep. Pelosi, along with the
Democratic Party as a whole, thanks to Baker-Hamilton, will suddenly find
herself co-opted behind a pro-Iran political-military strategy in Iraq,
perhaps with a nod towards establishing symbolic timelines for US troop
withdrawals that can easily be ignored in the future.

When should the Middle East peace process be convened? The Middle East
peace process should be convened after, not before, Iran's aggression and
subversion against Iraq is turned back. This is because turning back Iran in
Iraq will require a broad united front against Iran led by Syria and the
Sunni Arab states, including the Iraqi Shia under Muqtada al-Sadr, as well
as Iraq's secularists and leftists.

Such a broad Iraqi United Front would shatter Iran's plan for annexing Iraq.
Iran would suffer a significant defeat at the hands of Iraq and would no
longer to be positioned to disrupt the Middle East peace process or develop
nuclear weapons. At this point, and only at this point, would it be
appropriate to initiate direct negotiations between Iran and the US. The US
can be a partner to Iran, but not to an aggressive Iran.

In other words, the road to Middle East peace and regional stability lies
through the defeat of Iran in Iraq, not of Syria and the Sunni states.

Again, to accept the Baker-Hamilton recommendations for an early Middle East
peace conference and early US troop withdrawals benefits Iran as an
expansionist, pro-Nazi state that is uninterested in power-sharing with the
US in Iraq or anywhere else. President Bush is moving in the right
direction; his father is not. Stephen Hadley and Rep. Pelosi need to talk.

 

Petroleumworld

Editor's Note: Petroleumworld encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast, Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com or else and it is done within the fair use as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated.

Petroleumworld 11/14/06

Copyright ©2006 Petroleumworld. All Rights Reserved.

Send this story to a friend

Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us
their views and comments about this article.

Write to editor@petroleumworld.com

Any question or suggestions, please write to:
editor@petroleumworld.com

Best Viewed with IE 5.01+
Windows NT 4.0, '95, '98 and ME +/ 800x600 pixels