petroleumworld

Last Tuesday's New York Times editorial ("The Iraq Disaster") suggests a plan
for Iraqi stability that is far removed from current realities on the ground in
Iraq (e.g. the editorial ignores the issuue of who will control the
strategic port city of Basra, Iran or Muqtada al-Sadr?) The NYT's editorial
also ignores new international realities, such as the steep decline in US
power under President Bush and the rising importance of Russia and China in
resolving the major international disputes.

Here are the key issues to help frame the debate that the NYTs passed over
with its superficial editorial. Once these issues are placed in the proper
context, the US should be able to develop a Victory Plan for Iraq.

First, President Bush will not be able to hand off responsibility for Iraq
setbacks to his military commanders, the Democratic Party, or Prime Minister
al-Maliki's government in Iraq, as he is now attempting to do. When it comes
to Iraq policy, Bush is still the man, and he is uniquely accountable for
success or failure of US policy despite the action of others on Iraq.

Second, President Bush's fundamental mistake that is leading to US defeat in
Iraq was his misplaced confidence in Iran as a partner. This US confidence
was misplaced because Iran, now under a pro-Nazi leadership, lacks the
leadership qualities, the inclination, or the requisite allies in the form
of the Sunni Arab states to play a positive role in Iraq.

Third, the abrupt decline in US power due to US mistakes in Iraq has
initially benefited Iran. However, and more importantly, the US decline has
benefited Russia and China even more. In fact, the good news is that the
Big Three are now "condemned to cooperate" on Iran and North Korea. The
days of superpower freelancing and taking political advantages at the
expense of a superpower rival are fast disappearing

Fourth, in more good news, the Big Three battle against Iran will take the
shape of a campaign to uphold the post-WW II liberal world order based on no
further changes in post-WW-II borders, beginning with Iraq's borders; no
tolerance for states based on notions of ethnic/religious supremacy, as in
Iran today; and a willingness to block Iran in Central Asia and the Middle
East.

Fifth, the good news is that Iran's dream of a new Persian empire that will
dominate the Middle East and the Persian Gulf will perish in Iraq. Lined up
against Iran's power play in Iraq are the vast majority of the Iraqi people,
virtually all of Iraq's neighbors, and Russia and China. To illustrate - a
recent Republican Institute poll in Iraq found that nearly 80% of those
surveyed opposed the breakup of Iraq and the acquisition of southeastern
Iraq by Iran.

Sixth, in terms of specific policy for Iraq, put aside all the abstractions
about "Democratization" and nation building. Put aside all the abstractions
about staying the course, benchmarks, or exit strategies. The only issue
that matters is who, at the end of the day, will control Basra and Kirkuk,
the most strategic locales in Iraq. Basra is the key locale for stopping
Iran, which has no hope on annexing southeastern Iraq without first taking
Basra, which is now in the hands of the anti-Iran, pro-Iraq militia of
Muqtada al-Sadr. Moreover, Basra will stay in Muqtada al-Sadr's hands
unless the US moves in forces in to assist Iran in taking Basra.

In the same way Iran wants to take Basra, in order to precipitate Iraq's
partition, Iran's allies, the Kurds, want to take Kirkuk, which will also
precipitate Iraq's partition. Moreover, Kirkuk, like Bara, has enormous
reserves of oil. Iran and the Kurds want to monopolize Iraq's oil at the
direct expense of Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who will not go without a fight and
will look to al-Qaeda for support if they are betrayed by the US.
Unfortunately, the US has long neglected Iraq's Sunnis, along with the
pro-Iraq Shia under Muqtada al-Sadr, in favor of US support for the pro-Iran
Shia (Abdul-Azziz al-Hakim and the SCIRI party) and their Iranian-backed
plan to partition Iraq.

In short, the answer to the question of what the US should do in terms of a
Victory Plan in Iraq is crystal clear. The US should place top priority in
preserving Iraq's territorial integrity; deterring Iranian
aggression in Iraq and the region as a whole; to this end, pushing the Badr
Brigades out of Basra into Iran proper and working with Muqtada al-Sadr to
improve Basra's defenses; and, finally, demanding that the Kurds permanently
shelve their plans for taking Kirkuk as part of an independent Kurdistan.

Moreover, it is important to emphasize that the US will find allies eager to
take on Iran, like Syria. Just two weeks ago President Bashar al-Assad
called for the formation of a Saudi-Egyptian-Syrian Arab front to deal with
Iran's subversion in Iraq and other countries.

Why has the US not endorsed Assad's proposal for containing Iran? Why does
the US persist in viewing Iran as a strategic partner and Syria as a
permanent adversary. Finally, why does the US discourage Israel from
responding to Syria's detente initiatives? Is it that the US wants Syria as
an adversary as a way of helping Iran consolidate in Iraq and the region?

If President Bush and his appointees refuse to move ahead with an anti-Iran
US Victory Plan in Iraq, then it is time for the US Congress, in cooperation
with Russia and China to take the lead. President Bush has already done
enough damage to Iraq and the Middle East.

Scott Sullivan is a former Washington government employee. Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.

Editor's Note: All comments posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed are private comments and do not necessary reflect the view of this website. All comments are posted and published without liability to Petroleumworld.

Fair use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

All works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Petroleumworld has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or sponsored by the originator. 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.

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