http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2003-12-04/news_story2.php
ENEMY AXIS
BLOODIED U.S. QUIETLY FORGES ALLIANCE WITH ARCH-ENEMY IRAN AS FIRST STEP
IN
IRAQ EXIT STRATEGY
BY GEORGE FRIEDMAN
Iranian president mohammad Khatami did something very interesting November
17: he announced that Iran recognized the Iraqi Governing Council in
Baghdad. He said specifically, "We recognize the Iraqi Governing Council
and
we believe it is capable, with the Iraqi people, of managing the affairs
of
the country and taking measures toward independence."
Khatami also commented on the agreement made by U.S. administrator Paul
Bremer and the IGC to transfer power to an Iraqi government by June. This
is
pretty extraordinary stuff.
The IGC is an invention of the United States. The president of Iran has
now
recognized the IGC as the legitimate government of Iraq, and he has also
declared Iran's support for the timetable for transferring power to the
IGC.
In effect, the U.S. and Iranian positions on Iraq have now converged.
Despite absolute ideological differences on which neither side is prepared
to compromise, common geopolitical interests have forced both sides to
collaborate.
"Alignment" is a better word than "alliance." What is interesting is the
exceptionally quiet response of the global media to what is, after all, a
fairly extraordinary development. The media focus on. well, media events.
When Nixon went to China, the visit was deliberately framed as a massive
media event. Both China and the United States wanted to emphasize the
shift
in alignment, to both the Soviet Union and their own publics.
In this case, neither the United States nor Iran wants attention focused
on
this event. For Washington, aligning with a charter member of the "axis of
evil" poses significant political problems; for Tehran, aligning with the
"Great Satan" poses similar problems. Both want alignment, but neither
wants
to draw attention to it.
For the media, the lack of a photo op means nothing has happened. Except
for
low-key reporting by some wire services, Khatami's statement has been
generally ignored, which is fine by Washington and Tehran. In fact, on the
same day that Khatami made his statement, the news about Iran focused on
the
country's nuclear weapons program. We christen thee "stealth geopolitics."
The United States had not prepared for a guerrilla war in Iraq, and it had
no plan for fighting such a war. At the same time, for all its problems,
the
situation is not nearly as desperate as it appears.
Most of the country is not involved in the guerrilla war, which is
essentially confined to the Sunni Triangle - a fraction of Iraq's
territory - and to the minority Sunni group. The majority of Iraqis,
Shiites
and Kurds, not only are not involved in the war but are inherently opposed
to it.
However, being opposed to the guerrillas does not make the Shiites in
particular pro-American. They have their own interests: the Shiites in
Iraq
wanted to control the post-Saddam Hussein government. It is not fair to
say
that Iran simply controls the Iraqi Shiites, but it is fair to say that
Iranian intelligence systematically penetrated and organized the Shiites
during Hussein's rule.
Tehran has tremendous and decisive influence in Iraq at this point. Iran
has
a fundamental interest in a pro-Iranian, or at least genuinely neutral,
Iraq. The only way to begin creating that is with a Shiite-controlled
government.
If Iraq is neutralized, Iran becomes the pre-eminent power in the Persian
Gulf. Once the United States leaves the region - and in due course, the
U.S.
will leave - Iran will be in a position to dominate. Iran has, therefore,
every reason to want to see an evolution toward a Shiite government in
Iraq.
Washington now has an identical interest. The United States does not have
the ability or appetite to suppress the Sunni rising in perpetuity, nor
does
it have an interest in doing so. The U.S. interest is in destroying al
Qaeda. Washington thus needs an ally that has an intrinsic interest in
fighting the guerrilla war and power to do it.
The United States ultimately gets a force in Iraq to fight the
insurrection,
the Iraqi Shiites get to run Iraq and secure their Western frontier.
Moreover, the Iranians are motivated to fight al Qaeda (a movement they
have
never liked anyway) and can lend their not insignificant intelligence
capabilities to the mix.
The last real outstanding issue is Iran's nuclear capability. Iran would
obviously love to be a nuclear power in addition to being a regional
hegemon. That would be sweet. However, it isn't going to happen, and the
Iranians know that, because Israel cannot permit it. The U.S. would be
forced to take out Iran's facilities with American (weapons) in the
region -
better a non-nuclear U.S. attack than an Israeli nuclear attack.
The Iranians are now using their nuclear option to extract maximum
political
concessions from the United States. It is in Tehran's interest to maximize
the credibility of the country's nuclear program without crossing a line.
The nuclear issue is not the pivot. The alignment (over the IGC)
represents
a solution to both U.S. and Iranian needs.
However, in the long run the Iranians are the major winners. When it's all
over, they get to dominate the Persian Gulf and the Arab Peninsula. That
upsets the regional balance of power completely and is sending Saudi
leaders
into a panic.
The worst-case scenario for Saudi Arabia is, of course, an
Iranian-dominated
region. It's also not a great outcome for the United States, since it has
no
interest in any one power dominating the region.
But the future is the future, and now is now. We should remember that the
U.S. has a history of improbable alliances that caused problems later.
But Washington is not going to worry about the long run now.
In the short run, the U.S.-Iranian alignment is the most important news
since September 11. It represents a triumph of geopolitics over principle
on
both sides, which is what makes it work. Quite impressive.
Excerpted from Strategic Forecasting Inc. (www.stratfor.com ), a leading
global intelligence firm.
