A Mesopotamian Love Triangle?
- 03.12.2008 - 3:13 PMDiana West just emailed me her March 7 Washington Times column about Mahmoud Ahmadinijad’s visit to Iraq. The article “Whose Side is Iraq really on?” was sent with the tag “Feedback welcome.” With Diana’s permission, I’ll use this space for my thoughts.
Diana is disgusted with Ahmadinejad’s seemingly warm welcome in Iraq. She compares the U.S.-Iraq-Iran relationship to a pulp fiction love triangle. “The good guy (us, natch), has been betrayed by the love object he supports and defends (Iraq), having been left to watch and stew as she gallivants with his rival (Iran).”
In describing the situation as fiction, Diana is more correct than she knows. Ahmadinejad’s celebrated tour of Iraq was, more than anything else, a PR coup staged by a small group of Iranian proxies. Troubling as it is to read that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said to Ahmadinejad, “Call me Uncle Jalal,” it hardly means that the U.S is in an unprecedented historical pickle. In fact, he’s simply known to all as “Uncle Jalal.”
Though at times maddening, Talabani is in some sense exactly what Iraq needs to move forward: a shrewd, pragmatic leader with a cool eye on long-term solutions. In a region that’s known only murderous realists or murderous idealogues, a man for whom occasional compromise is a means to just ends is a promising change.
Iraq and Iran share an enormous border. Iraq is in no position militarily to stop the mullahs to their east. Frankly that will come down to us or Israel, or no one. If Talabani thinks observing the hollow niceties of “diplomatic” jaunts can buy his country a little peace, he is being, in my estimation, disturbingly “realist” and surprisingly naïve. But he’s not going over to the dark side.
Talabani may have been willing to go through the motions because, as mentioned earlier, Ahmadinejad’s trip was ultimately a failure. Orchestrated by Iranian surrogates inside Iraq, the deck was stacked wherever he went. Former employees of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qods Force, and the Ministry of Intelligence greeted him in various locations, while hordes of Iraqis outside his caravan protested.
But Ahmadinejad was deprived of what he wanted most: a picture with Shi’ite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. This would have advertised solidarity between Shi’ite Iran and the most important Shi’ite in Iraq. Though Diana cites the fact that al-Sistani still has an Iranian passport as evidence of the Iran-Iraq romance, al-Sistani seems to feel otherwise. He cited “scheduling conflicts” and sent Ahmadinejad back to Iran with nothing but a very dull razor in hand. The U.S., however, is still in Iraq, fighting the good fight, forging legitimate ties with a potentially powerful ally, and reestablishing throughout the region what had all but disappeared: American credibility.
Diana recently wrote a book entitled The Death of the Grown-up. It’s a fascinating study of how the West now faces the most pressing issues with a dangerously adolescent worldview. Diana writes at the end of her Times piece: “I wonder whether we will ever walk out on these destructive relationships and recover our self-respect.” I must say, respectfully, to her: Relationships are work, Diana. Kids quit.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 12th, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Talabani and other Iraqi leaders have to take the long view: their country will never be situated anywhere other than adjacent to Iran. They have to deal with Iran one way or another. The presence of American troops today gives them a wall behind which to pursue options — options they wouldn’t have alone. They know that. But ultimately, they have to have an Iraqi policy on Iran — one that THEY have the means to initiate and support.
Abe is right that NOT getting a photo op with Sistani is the major outcome of Ahmadinejad’s trip. Iraq is a nation of Arab character, and will never be summary, categorical, and Western in its outlook. Our take on the successes and failures of Iraq’s foreign policy will always have to derive from analysis, and vigilant consideration of our own objectives, rather than on any real empathy with Iraq’s policy motivations. (This is partly because of the cultural differences, but also because, very simply, Iraq is not America, and does not have the options of unilateralism that we, as a superpower, take for granted.)
In many ways, we may understand Israel; we only analyze the rest of the Middle East.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Franco treated Hitler similarly, for similar reasons.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:07 PM
you guys are fully delusional. as is ms west. ever heard of occum’s razor? iraq and iran are shia bretheren. there is nothing artificial or staged about the friendship they display when they get together. there’s no chess game going on in those pictures.
the iraqis are not on our side or irans side, they are on their own side and the side of their respective religions.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I once rode the same Amtrak train from Washington to New York as Diana West. At the time, she wrote a column that basically all hope is lost in Iraq and the only chance for any success with the Iraq situation was to split the country into 3 parts (Shiite, Suni, Kurdish). She eagerly showed her column to Sen. Specter, who she spotted on the train. For all his flaws (and they are many), he expressed that he did not think it was a good idea.
After Sen. Specter got off in Philadelphia, she offered for me to read the column and asked me what I thought. I also said that I thought it was a bad idea, and it would lead to disastrous results (beyond the obvious tragedy from mere mechanics of the plan) because the Shiite part would be in bed with Iran, the Sunnis part would be dominated by terrorists, and the Kurdish part would help aggravate Turkey. And I said that the idea that the Shiites and Sunnis absoloutley hate each other and will never be able to reconcile their differences is overblown.
Now it seems they are making some progress reconciling their difference, but now she is complaining that they are too cozy with Iran. I agree, but imagine how much worse the situation would have been if we followed her plan.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Diane West writes ” real life, of course, Iran is responsible for many of our nearly 4,000 war dead in Iraq, many of our nearly 30,000 war-wounded in Iraq”
this is very misleading. Our own government studies show most of the non iraqi insurgency comes via saudi arabia and syria. al queda is a sunni group. I’m sure iran has done a better job of helping the shia defend themselves against sunbni aggression than we have.
and what’s her beef about qatar backing hamas or iran backing hezbollah? this is the middle eeast not connecticut. those are the people who live there. it’s always been a crazy place.
is there is nothing that doesn’t surprise this woman? “omigod, some of our allies don’t like israel!”
March 12th, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Iraq and Iran share an enormous border. Iraq is in no position militarily to stop the mullahs to their east. Frankly that will come down to us or Israel, or no one. If Talabani thinks observing the hollow niceties of “diplomatic” jaunts can buy his country a little peace, he is being, in my estimation, disturbingly “realist” and surprisingly naïve. But he’s not going over to the dark side
More importantly, the Iraqis have to hedge against the Democrats possibly winning the WH in November, and [maybe] promising to pull out US troops and abandon the nacsent Iraqi state to the wolves, I damned well would expect the Iraqis to be kissing up to the new regional power next door with whom they have a long and bloody history. Again one more reason why the Obama and Clinton race to “I can surrender in Iraq before you can” game, if on the level (which Samantha Power the Genocide Chick seems to suggest it is not) will lead to bigger problems than we have now.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Iraq and Iran are two Shia-majority countries. And they border each other. They should be expected to have relations of some kind.
I’m skeptical, though, that they’re actually friendly to each other. Iran supports insurgents that seek to topple the Iraqi government. How, then, could the Iraqi government be genuinely supportive? It’s impossible.
Yasser Arafat shook Yitzak Rabin’s hand on the White House lawn. And then look at what happened.
Middle Eastern leaders pretend to like each other all the time. Even Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora refers to “sister Syria” when he isn’t on the lookout for deathsquads from Damascus.
The Middle East is full of smoke and mirrors and false friendships, and always has been.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:55 PM
The Middle East is full of smoke and mirrors and false friendships, and always has been.
As I am sure MJT can verify, it is part of Arab culture — lying to one’s own advantage and it carries no negative social stigma with it — it is as expected as a handshake in the US. Now, I know Iranians are not Arabs, but taqqyia is also a doctrine of Islam — i.e. lying to an infidel to gain an advantage. Don’t know if persian culture also accepts deciept as an honorable, or at least not dishonorable trait like their Arab cousins, but would not be surprised.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Not only that, Arabs hate Persians and vice versa. Actually I think the Persians look down on the Arabs, and the Arabs resent it. Is that about how it is, Michael? So even if they are both Shia they might not want to get into bed together. I mean, all the Catholic bishops in Europe during WWII didn’t band together, they supported their nations and their ethnic constituencies.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Eliezer’s DC “eagerly” misremembers my column of last summer, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the partition of Iraq. For the record, it dealt with the futility of our (still) current strategy of securing enough of Iraq so Iraqis can “reconcile” (which isn’t a strategy but a pipe dream even a rudimentary understanding of Islamic culture can pop).
Here it is:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/07/13/limited_war_gives_us_nothing
And here is Sen. Specter’s reply:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/07/20/train_of_thought_a_letter_to_sen_arlen_specter