Daesh, Subject of Washington-Tehran Cooperation
Following the start of the security crisis in Iraq caused by the presence of Daesh forces, some US media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, have reported the possibility of talks between Iran and the US about the issue of Iraq. Has the US, in your opinion, reached the conclusion that negotiating with Iran is the only way to achieve Iraqi stability?
Why do we say crisis? I would like to explain the situation in Iraq based on the theoretical framework of the US’ project in the 21st century. A theory called the management of instability is proposed in this project. Contrary to the past when they believed that the interests of the big powers like the US were provided by the stability of the regions of the world, after the 20th century and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the theory was proposed that some regions of the world wherein the US has interests and where there is the possibility of them being threatened must be unstable but managed. A look at the developments after 2001 shows that following the destabilization of Afghanistan and then that of other countries, all the countries entered a series of instabilities. I believe that there is instability in Iraq. One must ask, why did the US forces leave Iraq so that this situation would be created? A study of history indicates that the US occupied Japan and Germany but left them when there was stability. The theory of managing instability states that the US interests are provided through instability. Iraq was moving towards stability but suddenly Daesh entered this country. What is the number of the Daesh forces and how much power do they have? More attention should be paid to this issue. I do not believe that cooperation with Iran is serious. Hadn’t the US reached this conclusion prior to Iraq’s occupation that with its entrance to this country, Iran’s influence would be increased? Hadn't the US prepared the ground for this matter? It certainly had planned it beforehand. But talking about cooperating with Iran is more of a diplomatic formality and rhetoric than a reality.
You stated that the situation in Iraq is caused by the theory of managing instability. But some experts believe that the developments in Iraq are due to the instability in the political system and the weak performance of the government and the presence of the Arab states and their support of the terrorist groups. Nonetheless, will Iran and the US negotiate about this matter like what happened in 2003?
When it is said that the Arab states pursued instability in Iraq due to the situation in Syria, it must be said that prior to the crisis in Syria, Iraq was unstable and divided. I believe that this negotiation is possible. But how would negotiations provide the interests of both sides? The US has a complicated plan in Iraq and they intend to involve other governments. The interests which the US has defined in Iraq are stable and it pursues them. I predict that Iraq will not become stable until 2030.
Is the issue of US cooperation with Iran over Iraq affected by the nuclear and bilateral negotiations which have taken place during the past year or vice versa?
Yes, it could be affected but the developments in the region meaning those involving Iran, the US, Syria and Iraq must be viewed as a total package. Political give-and-takes balance each other. I believe that the US would advance the nuclear issue and the issue of Iraq. But predicting whether it would enter Iran into this game or not is difficult due to the complexity of the situation in the region. The signs show that the US will begin to cooperate with Iran to provide its interests.
The US had previously stated that the Revolutionary Guards Corps is a terrorist organization. Now the US knows that the presence of the military forces even to train the Iraqis is undeniable. How could the US solve this contradiction if it decides to cooperate with Iran?
Churchill says that diplomatic art is to bring out the interests from within the contradictions. There are other contradictions in the world with which the US acts. For example, the Khmer Rouge were communists, but the US financially supported them and the communist Vietnamese fought against this group. The same is true about Iran.
Why has the US extended its hand towards Iran during the past year to have direct negotiations?
Whenever the US feels that it is under pressure, it is ready to negotiate to lift that pressure. Mere negotiation is not important; what is is the issue of negotiation and its outcome. Did several rounds of negotiations in Iraq between Iran and the US lead to the US giving us concessions in the nuclear negotiations? Is there a win-win game? The answer to this question is very important.
Both Iran and the US agree with each other over the issue of terrorism in Iraq and attempt to resolve this issue. Could this common component be applied to other areas and negotiations about other issues held between Iran and the US?
First we must see who and what groups in Iraq are terrorists? It is true that Iran and the US have similar views with regard to the issue of Iraq. But the US considers the Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization while we consider the MKO as a terrorist group. There must be a definition of terrorism. The same holds true for Iraq. Are all those who are present in Iraq terrorists? From the US’ viewpoint, anybody who threatens the US’ interests is a terrorist. Therefore, we should reach a common point about terrorism. But it would be difficult for Iran and the US because their definition of terrorism is different from that of Iran.
Some experts believe that the events in Iraq are caused by the support of some Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, for the terrorists. The reason is that Saudi Arabia is upset about the US’ non-cooperation on the issue of Syria and Iran’s support of Bashar Assad’s government. What will be the reactions of the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, with regard to Iran-US cooperation?
Saudi Arabia will, naturally, react negatively to this issue. But I do not think that these reactions would be expressed openly. All the policies that Saudi Arabia pursues in the Middle East are in coordination with the US. The issue of Daesh and their entrance into Iraq was done exactly after Obama’s trip to Saudi Arabia. If the US had not given the green light to Saudi Arabia, this country would have never entered this game.
The US feels committed about its measures in the Middle East and has almost finished its operations. This could be seen in Afghanistan where following the downfall of the Taliban it stationed its forces in this country, drafted the security pact and will even continue its training program after the exit of its forces. Why isn’t there a similar commitment by the US with regard to Iraq?
The US does not intend to act similarly to Afghanistan. Each area has its own special diplomacy. Although the US does not openly cooperate with Iraq, it signs many contracts covertly. There have been contracts signed in Iraq’s Kurdistan region with the American oil companies. The US commitments with regard to Iraq are related to the management of instability. If the US intended to commit itself to Iraq, it must have provided its security but it did not give any commitments about this issue. Their intention is to keep Iraq in absolute instability.