As the tit-for-tat sectarian murders continue, the diplomatic struggle over Iraq is entering a highly complex stage. Syria took its own initiative yesterday with the visit of foreign minister, Walid Muallem, to Baghdad for talks with Premier Nuri Al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani. Meanwhile, news broke in Washington that former US Secretary of State James Baker has been in talks with Damascus through Syria’s US ambassador; Baker is exploring America’s diminishing policy options in Iraq.
The White House is absurdly still trying to make conditions for the acceptance of the Syrian, and more particularly the Iranian, intervention and cooperation it seeks in order to curtail the Iraq violence. On Capitol Hill, the mood among legislators is that, albeit reluctantly, Washington must try and deal, probably unconditionally, with these two countries, which it once roundly condemned as parts of an “Axis of Evil.” What does not yet seemed to have dawned on the Americans is the fundamental weakness of their own position. Indeed, if there are concessions to be made, at the moment it looks as if they are going to have to come from the US. With the violence in Iraq worsening by the day, it is now crystal clear that the Americans have no military solution to offer. Those Republicans, including presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who are arguing that more troops should be sent to Iraq, are plain wrong. There may have been a time when that could have made a difference but such a time has certainly passed. The victorious Democrats, meanwhile, are committed to pushing for the earliest possible military disengagement. America has precious little leverage left.
In advance of his Baghdad visit, Syria’s foreign minister called for the withdrawal of all occupation troops. He also went out of his way to back Iraq’s coalition government and condemn the terrorist violence. This may represent a new commitment by Damascus to act with vigor against the terrorist flow of men and materiel across Syria’s border with Iraq. It may also mean that it will move against Al-Qaeda and Iraqi Baathist hard-liners believed to be sheltering in Syria. What yesterday’s meetings seemed to make clear, however, was that such a shift will be made working with the Maliki government, rather than in cooperation with Washington. It may also be that Muallem made such a change conditional upon the departure of the occupation forces.
If this last were the case, Damascus is wrong. America has already lost this war and suffered a humiliation arguably greater even than that of Vietnam. Helping Iraq now will not help Washington save face. It will nonetheless save maybe tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Iraq is not like Lebanon. A full-blown civil war would have major regional consequences. Damascus has the chance now to win prestige and influence by helping diminish the gruesome bloodshed in Iraq. In concert with its long-time ally Iran, it can show that the region can order its own affairs without irrelevant US interference.
Will it seize the opportunity?
