by Gerald A. Honigman
Lots has been said by both this author and others about that much-anticipated report from the Baker-Hamilton Commission regarding America’s next moves in Iraq. So I’m not planning on just repeating more of the same… I hope.
Driving to work today, I happened to hear former Senator Alan Simpson--one of Baker’s current Iraq teammates--being interviewed on one of Al Jazeera’s American soul mates, National Public Radio.
Repeating what we’ve known through leaks weeks ago, he once again stressed the Iraq Study Group’s emphasis on chatting with Iran and Syria, Iraq’s neighbors, to attempt to seek their assistance.
Now, I’m a reasonable sort of guy…really.
Hey--what’s wrong with talking, after all?
Well, here’s the problem…
Syria and Iran are not reasonable chatting partners. That is, unless one believes that some thirty million stateless Kurds and the Jew of the Nations must once again consent to be sacrificial lambs to Arab interests (and those who become rich tied to them).
And the other problem involves who will do the chatting with them.
Will it be the Baker types and the State Department--who all have a history of shafting Jews and Kurds repeatedly, demanding a 22nd state for Arabs while knowing full well of its murderous intentions--regardless of who is at the helm--towards Israel…and using and abusing Kurds to further American interests, yet denying them the exact same rights freely offered to jihadist Arabs who have suppressed and massacred hundreds of thousands of them over the past century?
Even so, let’s consider a chat.
Let’s first take on our conversation with Iran.
Here’s a few things the Baker Crew are likely to leave out--not that they don’t know them, just that they won’t really enter into their equation. Sort of like Condi’s "assurances" that Hizbullah would be disarmed after the recent war in Lebanon. Some empty words may be uttered, but unless there’s a huge outcry against what’s now being brewed, that’s about the extent of it. Hizbullah, by the way, is now poised for a takeover of Lebanon.
For starters, while Iran calls for Israel’s destruction and the creation of another Arab state in Palestine (Jordan created out of some 80% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate), why doesn’t it first allow the creation of another Arab state in Arabistan--Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan province which Arabs have been the majority in and ruled for centuries, up until the early 20th century? Even the Iranians frequently called it Arabistan. While I don’t really think America will endorse this, it wouldn’t hurt to throw hypocrisy into their holier-than-thou faces.
And since Iran is so worried about the plight of Arabs outside of Iran, why does it continue to suppress and/or massacre thousands of Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, Jews, Azeris, and others within its own borders?
As far as the mullahs go, whom do they think they’re kidding?
Anyone with functioning neurons knows they’re gloating over the prospect of setting up the Islamic Republic of Iraq right next door. They’re already deeply enmeshed in attempting to bring this about, supporting the main Iraqi Shi'a militias as they do Hizbullah in its attempt to accomplish likewise in Lebanon. And what a nice postscript to the bloody war fought with Saddam’s Iraq (largely over Arabistan/Khuzestan) in the ‘80s!
So, just what does Baker think he can offer to convince them to stop what they see as now inevitable?
From a military perspective, I could think of a few things to bring up to try to convince them--especially since they’re determined to become a nuclear power. But that comes with risks too.
And who, pray tell, is the chief arms supplier, trainer, and benefactor of Hizbullah, Hamas, and other groups on the front lines of carrying out the mullahs' aim of the extermination of Israel?
Turning to the Syrians, we know quite well what they want. And Baker already promised them this decades ago while Secretary of State to George the First.
Having largely instigated the June ‘67 War which lost them the Heights--from which they blasted Jews below for over a decade--they now expect a complete return of the Golan.
Understand that such a deal would yield Israel the same “peace” it got after a complete withdrawal from Gaza and from Lebanon…and with thousands of Syrian tanks, missiles, and such ready to launch or roll down hill into Israel proper. Recall, as well, that Israel indeed offered--more than once--almost a complete return of the Heights for true peace. The latest offer's exception covered a tiny area Israel needed to insure the protection of its water sources.
Besides Israel, Syria is determined--with Iran's help--to have its way with Lebanon as well--a nation whose independence it has never truly recognized. Is there really any need to rehash further Syrian machinations on this matter?
Or Syrian-Iranian collaboration on all of these issues?
Additionally, with the eventual disintegration of Iraq (in many ways, the Yugoslavia of the Middle East) expected, Syria may also be eyeballing the oil wealth of the Kurdish north…as Turkey most certainly is as well.
So, coming back to where we started, what shall we chat about with these two nations so diametrically opposed to all that most Americans really value and stand for?
And note, I said most Americans.
If we let those, like Baker, who make millions by befriending such murderous despots, to set the course for our foreign policy by delivering our friends up to them on silver platters, not only will this backfire on us, but we will have lost any semblance of morality still left in that foreign policy.
While there' s no doubt that American plans and strategy for Iraq need a fix (and I've long written about this myself), shafting Jews and Kurds, first of all, won't bring this about and, second of all, will bring nothing but shame to us in the long run.