Could Iran really help stabilize Iraq?
James Baker and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the study group, believe Iran can be persuaded, mainly through incentives, to stop supporting militia groups in Iraq and promote conciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. Diplomacy with Iran and Syria marks one of the report’s three main recommendations (alongside shifting the role of American troops in Iraq from combat to support and jump-starting the Israeli-Arab peace process). Panelists on the bipartisan commission write that Iran has financed and armed both Shiite and Sunni groups and holds sway over key leaders like Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim , who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). “Of all the neighbors, Iran has the most leverage in Iraq,” their report says. It quotes a leading Sunni politician as saying: “If you turn over any stone in Iraq today, you will find Iran underneath.”
But in rummaging for a way out of the mess, the commission probably overestimated the chances of getting help from Iran. Here are two reasons:
Iran has no real interest in helping the United States. Baker and Hamilton believe Iraq’s disintegration would create a ripple of instability that even Iran must fear. Already, hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled Iraq to neighboring countries. With a large minority of Azeris, Kurds and Arabs, Iran has its own sectarian tensions to worry about. The Iraq Study Group report cites incentives Washington could offer, including helping Iran gain membership with the World Trade Organization and shifting U.S. policy from regime change in Iran to an emphasis on political and economic reforms. But with Iran riding the global oil market wave, many analysts believe those inducements amount to precious little. “Iran doesn’t want chaos in Iraq,” says Jon Alterman, who heads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But if it has a choice between a humiliating and bloody departure of American troops with some instability or the U.S. leaving with its head held high and no instability, they would opt for the instability.” Alterman believes the United States squandered opportunities to negotiate with Tehran when it was weaker. “If you’re Iran, this is a time of ascending strength. Is that the time you start giving things away?”
Iran probably has less influence than we think. Most of the intelligence community believes Iran has helped Iraqi insurgents carry out attacks on U.S. troops, in part by teaching them to make more lethal roadside bombs. But most of the militias now have their own sources of funding–from extortion and corruption schemes–and a stock of weapons from the old regime’s caches. “I’m mystified that people think Iran would actually be able to help bring about stability even if it wanted to,” says Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And though Iran has probably infiltrated some Shiite groups, its influence over Moqtada al-Sadr , who heads the powerful Mahdi Army, is thought to be limited.
These caveats could not have been lost on the panel. Baker met with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations during the deliberations on Iraq and heard tough words. “Our limited contacts with Iran’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq,” Baker’s commission wrote in its report. What Iran really wants in exchange for cooperation on Iraq is a free pass on its nuclear program. But that’s a price neither the Iraq Study Group nor the Bush administration is willing to pay.
