VOL. XLVI
No 44
3
The Political Scene (3 November2003)
There has been no let-up in the attacks on US forces and civilians in Iraq. The Americans are demanding Iranian cooperation in the war against al-Qa'ida. They also appear to have done a U-turn on the question of deploying Turkish troops in Iraq.
Attacks Escalate In Baghdad
As Ramadan began and the number of American casualties since hostilities were declared over on 1 May passed the 112 who died during the war itself, whoever is behind the current low-intensity guerrilla war launched the largest and most coordinated attacks to date: a 26 October rocket attack on the Rashid hotel in Baghdad – where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying – that killed a US colonel and wounded 17; and five suicide car bombs in various parts of Baghdad the next day that left 42 civilians dead and 200-plus wounded. Curiously – and with a logic that suggested a certain amount of desperation – both the Americans and the British took this escalation as proof that the coalition is winning the battle. In the US, President George Bush declared on 27 October that “the more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can’t stand the thought of a free society.” Similarly, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw argued on the same day that “one of the reasons for the attacks…is because the terrorists are themselves getting desperate because they can see the progress that is being made in one area after another.”
As to who is orchestrating the attacks, and whether they are being carried out by Saddam Husain loyalists or foreign fighters (or both), the Americans seem to be as confused as anyone. Brigadier General Mark Hertling told a press conference in Baghdad on 27 October that there are “indications” that the car bombings “seem to have been the operations of foreign fighters. They are not something we have seen in the former regime loyalists.” However Gen Hertling admitted that “we have not seen attacks we could attribute to foreign fighters before,” a fact confirmed by the commander of the US 4th Infantry Division, Major General Raymond Odierno, who said on the same day that 95% of the guerrillas are Saddam loyalists, with only “a very, very small percentage of foreign fighters – 2, 3, 4, 5 percent.” He added that “we have not seen any direct coordination” between loyalists and foreign fighters. Despite such comments, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran and Syria of complicating efforts to stabilize Iraq because foreign fighters were infiltrating into Iraq across their borders, saying “it sure would be a lot easier if they were helpful instead of harmful.” And on 27 October Mr Bush declared that “foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear because they fear a free and peaceful state in the midst if a part of the world where terror has found recruits,” adding that the US was “working closely” with Iran and Syria and that “we expect them to enforce borders, prevent people from coming across borders.” The Iranians did not bother to respond to these claims, but in Syria Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara' said on 26 October that “we are doing everything we can. We have tightened our checkpoints and are turning people back, but the border is long and we cannot cover all of it.” He also pointed out that “if America, a rich superpower, cannot stop Mexicans crossing into the US, then how can we, a poor country, be expected to stop Palestinians getting into Iraq?”
The US, Iran And al-Qa'ida
If the Americans want the Iranians to help in keeping foreign fighters out of Iraq, it might be a good idea to be back on friendly terms with them, but a détente with Tehran has, of course, been one of the main taboos of American foreign policy since 1979. Nonetheless, after the official Iranian media reported on 25 October that the government had given the Security Council the names of 78 suspected members of al-Qa'ida which it had already extradited to their countries of origin, as well as the names of 147 suspected members of al-Qa'ida and the Taliban who remain in Iranian custody, the Americans opened the door a crack to improved relations – but only conditionally. Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters on 27 October that “we have indicated to Iran we thought that anybody that they have in custody should be returned to places of origin for whatever justice might be appropriate or turned over to us if they choose to do that.” Likewise, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher indicated on the same day that “we believe Iran needs to turn over all suspected al-Qa'ida operatives to the US, or to their countries of origin, or to third counties for interrogation and trial.” And Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage spelled out the message when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 28 October that “we are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest as appropriate. We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations.” Moreover Mr Armitage went on to say that “despite public statements that they would cooperate with other countries, the Iranians have refused repeated requests to turn over or share intelligence about al-Qa'ida members they claim to have in custody. As the president made clear last week, Iran must change its course on this front: resolution of this issue would be an important step in US-Iranian relations and we cannot move forward without this step.” The US is thus demanding, rather than requesting, Iranian cooperation on al-Qa'ida, but unfortunately for the Americans, the Iranians have a few demands of their own, as government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh made clear when he said on 29 October that “we don’t have any relations or links with the US or its security services, so there is no reason to cooperate with them by giving them information.” Mr Ramazanzadeh pointed out that “you can’t threaten from one side and block our assets…and then request discussions. We have to see practical steps. The discussion here is what the US will do in practice to gain our trust.” And he suggested that releasing Iranian assets frozen after the 1979 revolution might be a good place to start, saying that “these are practical actions in order to gain Iranian trust and so we have a justification to initiate” talks.
Gul Loses Patience With US
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed on 24 October that the Americans, faced with opposition from Iraqis across the political spectrum, were having second thoughts about the wisdom of deploying Turkish troops in Iraq and had put talks on the subject on hold. “The US called our general staff some time ago,” he said, “and said ‘give us some time…and we will continue later.’” Mr Erdogan stressed that “the fact that a pause has been called in the talks does not mean that this job is over…the government is always ready." But he also pointed out that scrapping the whole idea “will not be a disappointment. Sending soldiers to Iraq is a risk…and we will get rid of this risk.” Subsequently, on 28 October, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul gave vent to Turkish frustration with American “ineptitude” on the question of deploying Turkish troops, saying “of course there is ineptitude here. First they came, very enthusiastic, and said ‘please do not be late’ and then they saw that there are many different issues. They have many hesitations themselves.” He added that “we are not going to undertake anything as long as there are hesitations…everything concerning us should be very clear, everybody should say ‘yes’.” And in what looked like an indictment of the Bush administration’s slapdash approach to the adventure in Iraq as a whole, Mr Gul said that “the Americans do not know the region very well. They did not pay much attention to the advice given to them. If the officials who are currently administering Iraq had known the region better, things would have been better today.”
Charles Snow