Between Iraq and a hard place

I’ve been too busy with meetings in New York yesterday and moderating a panel on the Iraq elections this morning to write much (not to mention my visit with grandson Ethan Isaac in Atlanta over the weekend).  So I’m grateful for this quickly produced Middle East Institute podcast of the Iraq panel.  I was joined for the occasion by former Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, now businessman (formerly Iraqi civil servant) Saif Abdul-Rahman, SAIS scholar Abbas Kadhim and National Defense University professor Denise Natali.

It seemed to me the bottom lines were these:

  1. The electoral process so far has gone better than expected, with strong turnout (60%) and relatively few complaints (854);
  2. The anticipated good but not overwhelming results for Prime Minister Maliki do not ensure the hat trick he seeks, but they make him the man to beat, in particular in intra-Shia negotiations;
  3. The government formation process will be difficult and possibly prolonged, leaving Maliki in power with the advantages of incumbency;
  4. The security conditions under which the process will unfold are precarious in several central provinces, including not only Anbar but also Saladin and Diyala;
  5. The regional conditions are also precarious, with Syria unraveling and high tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia;
  6. Because of its internal fault lines, Iraq is highly vulnerable to external pressures (mainly from Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia), including some that could lead in the direction of state failure.

Iraqis have still not created a state that all its sects and ethnicities feel comfortable in.  It needs a stronger political compact.  The Kurds are on the fiscal ropes and need a deal with Baghdad, but independence sentiment is growing.  Some Sunni-majority provinces are seeking “region” status; why shouldn’t they have it, consistent with the constitution?

Extremists are taking advantage of the tense internal situation in ways that pose real threats to US interests.  Washington should pay more attention than it does, not only to Iraq’s immediate military and intelligence requirements but also to fulfilling civilian aspects of the strategic framework agreement, which remains far short of the implementation it merits.

Those are the points that stick in my mind.  There is much more of merit where that came from.  Listening to the whole thing won’t be the worst 90 minutes you’ve indulged in lately.  I commend it to you!

Daniel Serwer

Share
Published by
Daniel Serwer

Recent Posts

No free country without free women

Al Sharaa won't be able to decide, but his decisions will influence the outcome. Let's…

13 hours ago

Iran’s predicament incentivizes nukes

Transparently assembling all the material and technology needed for nuclear weapons might serve Iran well…

14 hours ago

Getting to Syria’s next regime

The fall of the Assad regime in Syria was swift. Now comes the hard part:…

3 days ago

Grenell’s special missions

Good luck and timing are important factors in diplomacy. It's possible Grenell will not fail…

1 week ago

What the US should do in Syria

There are big opportunities in Syria to make a better life for Syrians. Not to…

1 week ago

More remains to be done, but credit is due

HTS-led forces have done a remarkable job in a short time. The risks of fragmentation…

2 weeks ago