IN AN attempt to quell mounting domestic opposition to its Iraq policy, the Bush administration quietly agreed to participate in a Baghdad conference next month that will likely include representatives from Syria and Iran. The announcement, reported by The Washington Post's David Ignatius, adheres to one of the most notable recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which has been widely embraced by the American public and Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike. While it is far too early to tell if American diplomacy aims to engage Damascus and Tehran beyond the limited parameters of the Baghdad conference, the move could be a sign of a significant change of tactics.
Beyond the implications on domestic politics, engagement with Syria and Iran - countries viewed as pariahs by the Bush administration - could eventually lead to discussions not only about the deteriorating situation in Iraq, but address several other critical issues, including the growing Sunni-Shia regional split, Lebanon, the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process, and nuclear proliferation. Pursuing a diplomatic endgame also is likely to generate goodwill among the "moderate" Arab allies who have been under intense pressure to contain an array of problems sparked in part by the invasion of Iraq and subsequent insurgency.
It remains to be seen whether President Bush's surge plan will achieve its objective of stabilizing Baghdad, but it is clear that the initiative further undermined the president's standing with Congress and among rank-and-file voters. Earlier this month the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the surge plan. Debate over the resolution revealed that the historically splintered Democratic Party has united in opposition to US policy in Iraq. More troubling, increasing numbers of congressional Republicans - including moderates such as Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Phil English (R-Pennsylvania) who once solidly supported the president - are abandoning the White House in droves.
While the Iraq resolution, as passed, is non-binding - meaning it has no legal implications and does not require the president to alter his plan - Democrats insist it is the first salvo of a campaign they intend to unveil which eventually could require the president to change course. In the House of Representatives, Jack Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) has promised to offer an amendment which would cut off funding for Iraqi military activities unless certain conditions are met - including that US military units are fully trained and staffed.
While Congress is narrowly supportive of forcing the president's hand on Iraq, it is overwhelmingly opposed to any potential military conflict with Iran. Numerous pieces of legislation have already been introduced in the House and Senate which explicitly oppose US military action against Iran. This legislative onslaught has come about as a result of US policies which many believe are intended to provoke Iran into taking belligerent actions - militarily or diplomatically - which could give the US a justification to attack Tehran. Most ominously is the increased American naval activity- including deploying a second aircraft carrier group to the Arabian Gulf. Should the White House ignore Congress, it could lead to a constitutional showdown that could have grave implications beyond the two-year life of the Bush administration.
Recent congressional activity also indicates there is strong congressional support for engagement with both Syria and Iran. Even ardent hawks such as John Warner (R-Virginia) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-California) - perhaps Israel's staunchest friend in Congress who strongly supported the initial US invasion of Iraq - are now championing a diplomatic offensive along the lines of the Iraq Study Group report.
Within the Arab world, a US commitment to diplomacy would be greatly welcomed. Already, the moderate Arab states have grown impatient with America's failure to broker deals or announce new initiatives which proffer peaceful resolutions to the crises in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. While both Egypt and Jordan have continually warned the White House about the consequences of inaction, Saudi Arabia worked doggedly to forge a power-sharing agreement with bickering Palestinian factions.
What America's Arab allies need now is direct US action, beyond one-time meetings, such as was held last week between Condoleezza Rice, Ehud Ohlmert, and Mahmoud Abbas, which have in the past amounted - at least publicly - as little more than photo opportunities. The prevailing perception in the Arab world today is that the US commitment to implementing more comprehensive plans, such as the Road Map, is minimal. This view, which undermines overall US strategy, can only be rebutted with substantive gains and visible progress.
The bottom line is that Congress and Arab leaders alike acknowledge that as bad as the situation in the region is today, it could get much worse should the US and Iran come to blows.
There is every reason to conclude that the Baghdad conference will lead neither to a significant change in American policy nor a commitment to engagement with Syria and Iran. But it does offer faint hope that this initial encounter could lead to further discussions - and possibly a way forward.
- David Dumke is principal of the Washington-based MidAmr Group. E-mail: [email protected].
