Glick's column today is a real news. Stunning. If you missed my live interview with Glick go here.
Peace with Friend Caroline Glick, J Post
There's one thing you have to admire about the
Iranians - they always tell you just what they think of you. They never
beat around the bush.
On
Tuesday, the day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki completed
his three-day visit to Iran, his envoy to the Islamic Republic received
a care package - delivered to his front door. When Iraqi Ambassador
Muhammad Majid al-Sheikh's driver opened the package, he discovered it
was a bomb.
In their best Farsi imitation of the Godfather, Iranian police
spokesmen claimed that the package was not a bomb - but aquarium
equipment. And in a way, they were right. The package was supposed to
help Sheikh "sleep with the fishes."
lol!
Just as is the case with their Syrian allies, the Iranians view
assassination as the easiest way to "signal" their displeasure with
diplomatic developments. In this case, clearly the Iranians were acting
out after what they considered to be a deeply disturbing discourse with
Maliki.
[...]
Writing in Iraq's Al-Dustour newspaper ahead of Maliki's
visit, editor-in-chief Bassim al-Sheikh opined, "Maliki's delegation
will be presenting the Iranian side with irrefutable evidence of
Iranian interference in Iraqi domestic affairs. In this light, the
visit could prove to be a watershed in Iraqi-Iranian relations,
especially now... that the covert game Iran has been playing in Iraq
has become all too overt, with very few hidden cards left in Teheran's
hand."
Then too, Iraq's Al-Sabah al-Jadid editorialized,
"Maliki's visit to Iran could be the last chance for a rational
settlement of any differences and a final dissipation of any
misunderstanding that may still exist between us and our big neighbor.
There is nothing in the lexicon of political pragmatism that will help
us evade the consequences of living next door to this neighbor, as
recent history has shown with such clarity."
Media reports of the visit included no details of what Maliki
told his Iranian hosts. But given their attempt to assassinate his
ambassador the day after he left, it can be assumed that the Iranians
were uninterested in "a rational settlement of any differences." And
indeed, it can be assumed that Maliki didn't mince any words as he
discussed the war Iran is waging against his people.
[...]
But here is where it gets really interesting and what "victory looks like":
he strategic agreement now being negotiated
between the US and the Iraqi government is a watershed event. Five
years after Saddam Hussein's terror-supporting, weapons of mass
destruction-seeking regime was brought down by the US-led coalition, a
democratically elected Iraqi government has emerged that views its
strategic interests as aligned with the US's. Its forces are fighting
side by side with US forces toward the shared goal of routing al-Qaida
and Iranian-backed terror militias in Iraq. Indeed, in March, Maliki
himself led the Iraqi assault on the Iranian controlled militias in
Basra. Two months later, Iran had been routed not only in Basra, but in
Sadr City in Baghdad where Iraqi and American forces fought
side-by-side in street after street.
Although referred to as a security agreement, to all intents
and purposes, the agreement that the US and Iraq are now negotiating is
a peace agreement. As most political theorists will attest, peace
agreements are contracts between countries with shared interests whose
representatives sit down and write out how they will advance their
shared interests together. So five years after the fall of Saddam, a
multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy in Iraq has emerged that
views the US as its primary ally.
This is what a strategic victory looks like.
A new world order. Read this carefully. This is where it gets wildy interesting and Glick is no cock-eyed optimist as we know but this is the most hopeful, wonderful, logical analysis I have read.
For
months, US commanders in Iraq have been saying that the Iraqi people
cannot abide the Iranians, the Syrians or the Saudis. They know that
these countries have been the chief sponsors of the insurgencies that
have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens over the past five
years. From the mass graves of al-Qaida victims in Diyala Province to
the death squads of Iranian-backed militias in Basra, the Iraqis know
that these countries have acted with malice aforethought in their
actions aimed at transforming Iraq into a massive killing field.
For
Israeli ears, what is striking about the Iraqi discourse is the near
total absence of anti-Israel or anti-Semitic propaganda. Indeed, there
is no discussion about Israel at all. From the 1930s through the fall
of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of the central propagators of Arab
hatred of Israel of both fascist and jihadist pedigrees. Successive
Iraqi regimes have used hatred of Israel as a way of solidifying and
justifying their tyranny. And now, for the first time, Israel isn't an
issue.
The Iraqis are concerned about their future. Whether US forces
remain in place for years to come under a President John McCain or they
are summarily withdrawn by a President Barack Obama, the Iraqis know
that one day they will be on their own. And they will need allies. They
cannot trust their Arab neighbors, which treat the Shi'ite majority
country now governing democratically with hostility and suspicion.
Obviously Iran and Syria aren't good options. They will both be quick
to pounce on a post-US withdrawal Iraq.
And then there is Israel.
THERE IS no reason to doubt that Israel has a potential
strategic ally in Iraq today. Indeed, Iraq could become the next
decade's version of Turkey in the 1990s or Iran in the 1960s and 1970s.
Both in their day were Israel's primary regional ally.
Diplomatic and military discussions may be drawn out and
difficult. They may even be exasperating. And depending on developments
in Iran in the coming years they may never lead to the signing of a
peace treaty on the White House lawn or the exchange of ambassadors. On
the other hand, they might.
But what is clear enough is
that today Iraq shares vital interests with Israel. It has common
enemies. It has common challenges as a democracy. And it doesn't hurt
that Palestinians are nearly universally reviled by Iraqis who view
them as Saddam Hussein's most stalwart henchmen.
An Israeli-Iraqi alliance would help secure Jordan. It would
frighten Syria and perhaps force Damascus to reconsider its alliance
with Teheran. It would provide Israel with a new source of natural gas
and so end its dependence on fickle Egypt. It would mitigate Israel's
political isolation in the region. It would provide Iraq with a safe
port in the Mediterranean for its oil exports in the event that the
Shaat al-Arab is closed by Iran in a future war. Iraqi Shi'ite leaders
could help draw Lebanese Shi'ites away from Iran's Lebanese proxy
Hizbullah. Indeed, the potential of an Israeli-Iraqi alliance is
seemingly endless.
A basic political fact of life stands at the heart of this
theoretical Iraqi-Israeli alliance. Peace is possible for the first
time between Israel and Iraq because, for the first time, Iraq
perceives its interests as aligned with Israel. That is, peace is
possible because at a very basic level, Iraqis today - whether they
admit or not - are Israel's friends. And they know it.
And this raises the larger point that should inform the next
Israeli government. Specifically, unlike what Israel's Left has been
preaching for the past 20 years, peace is made with friends and not
with enemies. It is impossible to make peace with enemies because
enemies perceive their interests as being in competition with one
another. And since peace agreements are nothing more than codifications
of the modalities for acting on perceived shared interests, no peace
treaty with an enemy is worth the paper it's written on.
It is hard today to find an Iraqi leader who overtly states his
desire for peace with Israel. Mithal Alousi is the one heroic
exception. But that is not important. By signing a peace treaty with
the US and confronting Iran head-on, the Iraqis are making it
abundantly clear where they believe their interests lie.
You have no choice, YOU MUST READ IT ALL.
UPDATE: More on the Iraqi argument over at Commentary - the American perspective
Recent Comments