53407065.

doc Page 1 of 2

Wednesday 12 March 2008

Withdrawal From Iraq

By Georges Malbrunot
Le Figaro

Le Figaro's star Foreign Service reporter believes

"the United States will have to negotiate its
withdrawal from Iraq with Baghdad's neighbors."
Five years after defeating Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States - unable to
stabilize Iraq - has been reduced to negotiating its military withdrawal with
Baghdad's neighbors, including with its worst Iranian and somewhat-less-bad Syrian
enemies. Of course, the issue is not presented this way in Washington. Nonetheless,
it is not the least of many paradoxes that we see the Americans forced to
"regionalize" the Iraqi crisis five years after their triumphant march on Baghdad.
A precipitous withdrawal of American troops would have dramatic consequences for
the Middle East. Post-war victor Iran acted as South Iraq's guardian and also
exercised real influence in Baghdad through its relays to the leadership of the Shiite
factions that have dominated the political scene in Iraq since 2003. Turkey, for its
part, will not tolerate any additional Kurdish pipe dreams of independence, nor, still
less, Kurdish jurisdiction over oil-rich Kirkuk which the Kurds so covet. In either of
these events, the red lines Ankara's politicians lay down will be drawn by the Turkish
army on Iraqi territory. As for Saudi Arabia, all it wants is for the GIs to wring al-
Qaeda's neck before they leave, since that terrorist movement threatens Saudi
Arabia's own stability.
Luckily for Washington, the chaos in Iraq is so profound that no bordering country
wants the cancer to spread and metastasize at home. That offers the Americans a
certain room to maneuver, including vis a vis Iran. In five years, Tehran has patiently
constructed a nuisance capability in Iraq that makes Iran an inescapable partner in
any negotiations over the future of its former enemy. In Baghdad, however, Tehran
absolutely wants to avoid a level of chaos that it cannot control. Tehran's priority is to
establish the Islamic Republic's security and permanence: hence the regular
meetings with American representatives in Baghdad, the last round of which was
postponed a week ago. The Iranians reproach the CIA for exploiting its alliance with
Iraq's Sunni tribes to incite them to mount attacks against Iranian territory.
On their side, the Americans reproach Iran for having resumed arms deliveries to
Shiite groups hostile to the United States. Whatever the reality of these accusations,
no one doubts that the two enemies will resume talking. Even if the framework for
these discussions is officially limited, it could, at the right moment, encompass other
disputes among their various disagreements (Iranian nuclear capabilities or support
for the Lebanese Hezbollah, for example).
With Iraq's other neighbors, a formal dialogue takes place within the framework of
ministerial conferences devoted to regional security. Syrian cooperation to forestall
the flood of foreign jihadists into Iraq is at the center of these discussions. For the last
few months, that situation has improved. Damascus has, moreover, supplemented
that progress with significant gestures: an American military attache was invited to
Syria's border with Iraq. The Syrians have also authorized American officials to come
and supervise Iraqi refugee visa requests. What remains to be seen is whether in the
53407065.doc Page 2 of 2

event of a sudden rise in tensions the United States will be able to detach the Syrians
from their Iranian allies. Nothing is less certain, as Damascus is in the habit of
keeping two irons in the fire at all times.
With its Saudi and Jordanian partners, the American game is easier. Washington
finally heard their recriminations over the Sunni minority's inadequate participation in
the Iraqi government. The United States will need Riyadh and Amman's cooperation
when it will become necessary to redeploy American troops to Iraq's interior, or to its
borders.
The other issue induced by the beginning of an American withdrawal is that
Washington has to negotiate the contours of a strategic agreement with Baghdad
that will define the status of the 50,000 American soldiers to remain in Iraq, whoever
is elected president in November. Yesterday, the two sides resumed these politically
quite sensitive negotiations in Baghdad. How can such a contingent be kept on Iraqi
soil, while both Americans and Iraqis repeat the assertion that there will be no more
American bases?
Behind the complexity of the bilateral issues, control of Iraqi oil makes a deal much
more difficult to negotiate. Can Washington authorize the Iranians to exploit those oil
fields shared with Iraq? In the event of an American veto, Tehran could continue to
stall adoption of the oil law which has been under discussion for over a year in the
Baghdad parliament and without which the majors - i.e. the Americans - cannot
operate in Iraq. One certainty: the United States cannot leave the former
Mesopotamia without nailing down the oil equation.
Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher