January 20, 2007

Kissinger: Two-Pronged Diplomatic Approach Necessary

Henry Kissinger, yet again, recommends we talk to Iran:

As the comprehensive strategy evolves, a repositioning of American forces from the cities into enclaves should be undertaken so that they can separate themselves from the civil war and concentrate on the threats described above.

The principal mission would be to protect the borders against infiltration, to prevent the establishment of terrorist training areas or Taliban-type control over significant regions. At that point, too, significant reductions of American forces should be possible.

Such a strategy would make withdrawals depend on conditions on the ground instead of the other way around. It could also provide the time to elaborate a cooperative diplomacy for rebuilding the region, including progress towards a settlement of the Palestine issue.

Few diplomatic challenges are as complex as that surrounding Iraq. Diplomacy must mediate between Iraqi sects which, though in many respects mortal enemies, are assembled in a common governmental structure. It needs to relate that process to an international concept involving both Iraq's neighbors and countries further away that have a significant interest in the outcome.

Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:

The creation of a contact group, assembling neighboring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.

Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order.

Both categories of consultations should lead to an international conference including all countries that will have to play a stabilizing role in the eventual outcome, specifically the permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as such countries as Indonesia, India and Pakistan.

A balance of risks and opportunities needs to be created so that Iran is obliged to choose between a significant but not dominant role or riding the crest of Shia fundamentalism. In the latter case, it must pay a serious, not a rhetorical, price for choosing the militant option. [emphasis added]

But luminaries like Hugh Hewitt and assorted legions of right Bolshevik fantasists are opposed, Dr. Kissinger! So no go just now, alas.

Posted by Gregory at January 20, 2007 04:50 PM
Comments

Ah, my coinage has caught your eye.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 20, 2007 06:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It's hilarious what you choose to highlight and what you leave non-highlighted, despite its integral importance and tied to the suggestion given by HK:

In fact, a balance of risks and opportunities needs to be created so that Iran is obliged to choose between a significant but not dominant role or riding the crest of Shiite fundamentalism.

In the latter case, it must pay a serious, not rhetorical, price for choosing the militant option. An outcome in which Iran is approaching nuclear status because of hesitant and timid nonproliferation policies in the Security Council, coupled with a political vacuum in the region, must lead to catastrophic consequences.

Understood? This is precisely what the Bush administration have been saying. I believe that Steve Hadley was the one who put it thusly: "talking is not a strategy. The issue is how can we condition the environment so that Iran and Syria will make a 180-degree turn, so that rather than undermining the Iraqi government, they will support it."

OK? "How can we condition the environment," "a balance of risks and opportunities need to be created," a "serious price" etc.

Without this, talking would and could be completely detrimental to our interests and could backfire badly. That's partly one reason why Saud al-Faysal reportedly directly interfered with the French FM and told him not to go to Iran.

Also, your cherry-picking of what HK is, and has been consistently, saying only reflects your own fantasies and grossly misunderstands what he's saying. He has been saying consistently that on the one hand, Iran must first decide whether it's a cause or a nation. Only then could our talks with them be meaningful. Second, he also said that right now they are too cocky, and unwarrantedly so according to HK, that they will see any talks as surrender. Again, this is standard Bush admin. rhetoric.

On the other hand, with Syria, HK has said that Syria's influence, both as a spoiler and fixer, is marginal in Iraq. And all serious observers have agreed that their influence is severely limited and they are mere spoilers. There too the same conditions apply. The ISG chatter led to the assassination of Gemayel, etc.

So, get a grip.

Posted by: Tony at January 24, 2007 11:27 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

About Belgravia Dispatch

Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization.


More About the Author
Email the Author
Recent Entries
Search



The News
The Blogs
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS

Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by:
www.vikeny.com

Powered by