![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoRe #70: "What's in it for them?"
What's in it for them is, hopefully, stability in a large nation on their border. Prolonged chaos in Iraq is apt to eventually spill over onto them, and would be almost as bad as having a US controlled puppet government in the region.
A stable US puppet for them is the worst option, because it would be a launching ground for attacks by the US against them, in the way that Kuwait was a launching ground against Iraq.
But a stable Iraq where they have a measure of power, and where the US isn't in complete control, is a far more attractive option. Stable, so it doesn't provide a training ground for their dissidents to train to overthrow them, or serve as a festering conflict ready to spread through the region, but with them having enough control so that the Iraqis can't attack them, and the US can't attack them.
"What's in it for them is, hopefully, stability in a large nation on their border. Prolonged chaos in Iraq is apt to eventually spillover onto them, and would be almost as bad as having a US controlled puppet government in the region."
Again, that sounds like a list of why we would want them to cooperate.
I'm not sure either Damascus or Tehran would agree with the domino theory -- indeed, they might well think Iraq is their domino, about to tip (Iran especially).
Example: Say Iraq is cut into three, one of the parts being a Kurdistan. It's usually presented by the Western press that an independent Kurdish state is anathema not only to Iraq, but also toTurkey and Iran, who have large Kurdish populations. But a Kurdish state carved out of Iraq -- that is, not Iran -- gives the Iranians a place to exercise some ethnic cleansing, and exile the Kurds they have.
That may or may not work -- but I can easily see some among the mullahs who think it might. The US does not have a monopoly on Rumsfeldian over-optimistic folly.
Or, to put it another way: Chaos that humiliates the US (and ties down our blood and treasure) is preferable to many players in the region to stability that doesn't.
There's also the minor problem of, How can either the Sryian or the Iranian goverments do anything with us without being perceived internally to their own countries as "a US controlled puppet government"? If one's goal is stability, is fomenting regime changes that would be even more hostile to cooperation with the US -- for such would be the probable result -- be useful?
The Syrians and Iranians could get away with it if it was perceived as them pushing the US out, saving the US idiots, etc. Creating their own puppets in Iraq.
Essentially us going hat in hand to them, and asking for help.
But I don't think any US administration would be able to swallow its pride enough to do what needs to be done in order to get genuine Iranian and Syrian support and help.
The chaos is leading to a refugee crisis in Jordan, and quite possibly creating internal problems for Iran and Syria as well. Straightforward economic problems, like inflation from having more people making demands on the local resources.
And their people aren't monsters. Most of them see the violence and death in Iraq and are horrified, on a purely human level. If the interventions are clearly not "helping the US" but "kicking out the US and fixing the harm the US did" it will be politically acceptable, as well as humanly desirable.
It's the US political will that would be a problem, far more than the Iranian or Syrian will. The US can'tfix this mess, but no one else is going to be willing to try as long asthe US stays in the way, trying to call the shots. US troops under Iranian or Syrian leadership, taking instructions from people who know the language and can tell civilian from insurgent, might be acceptable, and workable, but the US in charge won't be.
We've gotten sidetracked from my original question, which was, "What's Baker's next move when he insists Bush try to talk to them, and Bush does, and they loudly and publicly tell him to go screw?"
Leave aside how likely that may or may not be (clearly opinions differ) -- What's Plan C?
This isn't purely a speculative exercise. I heard Robert Siegel interview Robert Haass of the Council on Foreign Relationson NPR, and Siegel made similar points to what I have, and Haass made similar points to Ursula's. Whereupon Haass said something along the lines of, "I think it's worth a try."
What I heard in that was (and I could well be wrong), "Look, it's taken us 4 years to come up with a Plan B. We're too exhausted from that fight to come up with a Plan C."
And my point is, the best laid plans of mice and men, etc.
So, what would Plan C look like?
"Bush has for some time now been refusing to communicate with Syria and Iran... Baker will almost certainly insist that we do so..."
Here's my problem with that:
What's in it for them?
In other words, I can see why we would want Syria and/or Iran to bail us out of this mess, if possible. Trouble is, I don't see any gain on their part to do so. In fact, all of their incentives are against helping us at all.
What's Baker's next move when he insists Bush try to talk to them, and Bush does, and they loudly and publicly tell him to go screw?