Re: The Price of Iran's Help

Washington Post
December 6, 2006

The Price of Iran's Help

By David Ignatius
davidignatius[AT]washpost.com

Dubai -- On the eve of the Baker-Hamilton commission's report, a top
Iranian official set a tough condition for his country's help in
stabilizing Iraq, saying that Tehran isn't interested in such
cooperation unless the Bush administration sets a timetable for
withdrawing its troops.

Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser, said in an interview
that a U.S. plan for removing "occupation forces" from Iraq would be
considered "a sign of a change in strategy". In that case, he said,
"Iran would definitely extend the hand of assistance and would use its
influence to help solve the problem".

The Iranian official made his comments after a speech yesterday to a
conference here called the Arab Strategy Forum. His remarks were the
clearest statement I've heard of how Iran views its role in the region
following what he described as the failure of U.S. intervention in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

His tone was triumphalist: In his view, America is bogged down in Iraq
and "in dire need of change", while a newly confident Iran is
positioning itself as a dominant power for the region.

"When we face a strategic stalemate, we can break it only by changing
the strategy itself", Larijani said in his speech. He explained that
America's choice was to stick with a failing strategy of
unilateralism, tinker with it to "retard the process" of defeat, or
replace it altogether with a new strategy of "interdependence" that
recognized Iran's primacy as a regional power. By embracing a new
strategy, he said, the United States "would bring psychological calm
to the region and help America to behave in a more rational way".

When I asked Larijani later at a news conference what Iran would
regard as evidence that the Bush administration was indeed changing
its strategy, he said, "The clearest sign would be the exit or
evacuation of U.S. forces", adding: "Should there be a timetable
presented, that would serve as a positive sign".

On the nuclear issue, Larijani said that a UN Security Council
sanctions resolution reportedly drafted this week by Russia and France
would not stop Iran's uranium-enrichment efforts. "I announce: This is
not effective", he said.

After these public comments, Larijani talked one-on-one about the
changes he thinks have been set in motion by the Republican Party's
defeat in last month's congressional elections. He wouldn't talk in
detail about the likely recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,
headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and ex-
representative Lee Hamilton. But he indicated that if the Bush
administration embraced a call for gradual withdrawal, Iran would
agree to join discussions on Iraq and Afghanistan. Though he called
repeatedly for a U.S. withdrawal plan, Larijani didn't explain how the
resulting vacuum would be filled in a way that avoided all-out civil
war.

Belfer Center's Graham Allison (http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/
Graham_Allison), who had a private talk with Larijani following mine,
said: "In discussing Iraq after U.S. withdrawal he didn't seem to have
a credible idea of what comes next".

As for the idea of a regional peace conference involving Iraq's
neighbors, Larijani told me he favored a smaller group of countries
that are committed to the "new paradigm" in Iraq flowing from its
democratic elections and constitution -- both of which enfranchised
Iraq's Shia majority. "We are against a tribal democracy", he said.

Larijani said President Bush's statement in an interview with me in
September, in which Bush recognized Iran's status as an important
nation in the region, was "the first sign of having any respect for
the long history and cultural background of Iran". But Larijani said
the administration needed to accompany such rhetoric with a halt to
its "adventurous moves" against Tehran. "The Iranian people might be
great and gracious, but not naive", he said.

Larijani isn't proposing a grand bargain but a ruthlessly pragmatic
one shaped by Tehran's view of current realities: Iran is up, America
is down, and any post-Iraq settlement should reflect those facts.
That's the steep price of Tehran's help.

In a column last week, I praised Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for
his prescient early warnings about the risks of U.S. involvement in
Iraq. Some readers complained that for all his prescience, Hagel still
voted to support the war, and that I was ignoring the many Democrats
who were similarly wary of Iraq -- and who voted against war funding.
These readers are right. Hagel took political risks expressing his
concerns back in 2003, but so did Democrats who voted against the Iraq
mission despite a vitriolic barrage from the administration.

View all comments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?
contentID=AR2006120501140

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/
AR2006120501140_pf.html

.