|
|
|
|
|
FRIEND OR FOE?
• The Debate: The
Pentagon and the State Department are at odds over how much credit
Iran deserves for recent security improvements in Iraq. |
Within the State Department, an array
of senior officials say they now believe that the Iranian government is taking
steps to curb the flow of such advanced weaponry into Iraq and to pressure the
country's largest Shiite militia, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, to honor a shaky
cease-fire with the U.S. Some of these officials say Washington should
begin broader diplomatic talks with Tehran in response.
 |
At the Pentagon, however, Defense
Secretary Robert Gates and several of his top aides say it is too soon to
conclude that Tehran has made a strategic decision to change its behavior in
Iraq. Many in the military believe that the flow of Iranian weaponry is
continuing, even if in reduced amounts, and that Shiite militants are
stockpiling armaments for future use.
"We can see some clear signs that JAM is standing down," a senior military
official in Baghdad said, using the Arabic acronym for Mr. Sadr's militia.
"But once you get past the atmospherics, it's hard to see clear signs that
they're standing down because Iran stopped giving them new toys to use against
us."
The dispute carries significant implications for future U.S. policy toward Iran.
A number of State Department officials are pushing for a diplomatic outreach to
Iran, arguing that Iranian security assistance in Iraq could be the basis for a
broader improvement in the chilly relationship between Washington and Tehran.
Pentagon officials, by contrast, are urging a go-slow approach, arguing that the
U.S. should wait for clearer evidence that Iran has made a lasting decision to
help stabilize Iraq before beginning broader talks with Tehran.
Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan New
York-based think tank, says that the U.S. and Iran now have enough shared
interests in Iraq to make direct talks worthwhile.
 |
Mr. Nasr says that postwar Iraq has
long posed a dilemma for Tehran. With more than 150,000 American troops
stationed in Iraq, Iranian leaders may once have thought they needed to funnel
weapons to Shiite militants inside Iraq to keep the U.S. preoccupied and stave
off a possible U.S. strike on Iran, Mr. Nasr says.
But as a Shiite-dominated country, Iran also has close ties to the Shiites who
have held power in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion. That has convinced
Iran's rulers that they need to take steps to pull Iraq back from the brink of
outright collapse, shore up the embattled Iraqi central government and keep the
country's competing Shiite militias from fighting each other for money and
power, Mr. Nasr says.
The differences between the Pentagon and the State Department over Iran have
come into clear view in recent days.
On Friday, Mr. Gates told reporters that he had "not yet" seen any persuasive
evidence that Iran was trying to reduce the flow of weaponry into Iraq. A
new Pentagon report about Iraq similarly concluded that there "was no identified
decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shia militias in Iraq."
State Department officials have taken a very different tack. U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told reporters in Baghdad on Sunday that there
were "some indicators that the Iranians are using some influence to bring down
violence from extremist Shia militias." That echoed similar comments by
David Satterfield, the top State Department official on Iraq.
The State Department's praising of Iran's recent activities in Iraq comes as the
Bush administration attempts to recalibrate its policy toward Tehran following
the release this month of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate downgrading the
threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program.
A number of U.S. officials acknowledged privately that the new intelligence
estimate has undermined efforts to impose economic sanctions on Iran. But
there is also a belief by some in the Bush administration that the intelligence
estimate might provide an opening for the U.S. to engage more constructively
with Iran over both its nuclear program and its activities in Iraq.
"It may create an opening for them" to talk with us, a Bush administration
official said of the intelligence estimate. He said the two governments
could each use the report as a face-saving tool to explain any new diplomatic
talks.
Indeed, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noticeably toned down her rhetoric
toward Iran following the release of the intelligence report. In a news
conference last week, Ms. Rice said that the U.S. "doesn't have permanent
enemies" and that she was "prepared to meet my [Iranian] counterpart anyplace
and anywhere," provided Tehran suspends its uranium-enrichment activities.
A growing number of outside analysts believe that because of the intelligence
estimate, Washington should no longer make Iran's suspension of its nuclear
program a precondition for broader talks. Several former U.S officials
said they wouldn't be surprised if the State Department ultimately agreed to
talks even without such a suspension, given similar policy reversals by the
White House toward North Korea and Syria.
Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at
yochi.dreazen@wsj.com and Jay Solomon
at jay.solomon@wsj.com
Send mail to
email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
|
