Time to Capitalize more on Talks

11 September 2010 | 23:15 Code : 8615 Editorial
By Sadegh Kharrazi.
Time to Capitalize more on Talks
Last week, President Obama officially declared an end to the US combat mission in Iraq after seven and a half years of war. He said that “Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.” Obama’s decision to end the presence of US combat forces by Sep.1, 2010 is in conformity with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between Iraq and the United States. The new phase of operations called “Operation New Dawn” is focused on the support and counterterrorism training of the Iraqi forces by nearly 50,000 US troops who will, based on SOFA, have to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

It is interesting to note how the then US Administration planned to initiate the conflict in 2003. Satisfied with the so-called defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Bush and his colleagues embarked on a new adventure and put lots of efforts to magnify the threat posed by the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to regional and international peace and security. In this regard, speaking from the White house, Bush said that the US objective was to defend the world from grave danger. In fact, the Bush doctrine was to use force in a pre-emptive manner to deal with threats against the United States.

US invaded Iraq in March 2003 and following the capture of Baghdad and removal of Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush declared “the mission accomplished.” Now, after these turbulent years another US President has declared the end of a mission in Iraq. Now with the completion of the US combat mission in Iraq where more than 4,400 US troops and more than 50,000 Iraqis have been killed in that bloody conflict, the question arises as to whether the US military involvement in Iraq was really worth it particularly when there are still security problems in the country and the political leaders have not been able to put aside their differences to form a new government after almost five months of the parliamentary elections.

Before answering this important question, it is necessary to assess the real aims of the United States in initiating such a conflict in 2003. There are a number of perceived objectives mentioned as motives for US involvement in Iraq. Some analysts believe that control of the Iraqi oil was the main US objective. Others are of the opinion that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was Bush’s main aim, particularly since Saddam had planned to kill his father in 1990s, while other analysts consider containment of Iran was the main objective of the United States. In other words, the removal of Taliban and Saddam regimes and the consequent presence of US forces in those countries would give a better chance to US to squeeze Iran to submit to its pressures.

Whether one or a combination of these objectives was considered by US officials as the main reason to attack Iraq, the fact of the matter is that not only the Iraqi people have been relieved form Saddam’s rein, but also the concerns of the neighboring countries of Iraq were allayed by the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, the United States should know that the Iraqi people do not allow it to remain in their country indefinitely to control their resources and to intimidate their neighbors.

The Obama Administration’s current policies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine contain a common element that is to portray Iran as a main culprit responsible for the troubles in the region. Mr. Obama is well advised not to listen to those in the US and Israel who are eager to involve his country into another adventure in the Middle East. President Obama should not forget the fact that his opposition to war in Iraq brought him many supports in 2008 presidential elections. Capitalizing more on dialogue and understanding on equal footing, in the absence of atmosphere of intimidation, than on war-mongering policies would serve the interest of both countries better. The United States and Iran can work together to bring back stability and tranquility to Iraq and Afghanistan. The upcoming talks between Iran and 5+1 countries can provide both sides with another opportunity to build confidence and remove suspicion and misunderstandings.