The fantasy world of the realist

NRO Editorial:

Who can disagree with the report of the Iraq Study Group? It says, “Iran should stem the flood of arms and training to Iraq,” and “Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flood of funding, insurgents and terrorist in and out of Iraq” (emphasis added). It would be wonderful if Iran and Syria did those things, but unless some reasonable means of making them do so is advanced, saying that they “should” is airy wishfulness rather than strategy.

Welcome to the non-reality-based world of bipartisan commissions. Even commissions flying under the banner of realism, such as the James Baker/Lee Hamilton–led ISG, inhabit that world.

The ISG doesn’t recommend any plausible way of making Syria and Iran behave the way they “should.” Instead, it advocates talks that will magically convince the Iranians and Syrians to stop pursuing their interests in Iraq. The report argues that none of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, favor a breakup of Iraq, and posits a common interest with the U.S. on that basis. But there is a wide range of outcomes in Iraq short of a breakup. And the outcome sought by Tehran and Damascus is very different from the one preferred by the United States. Those two governments want to defeat us in Iraq and foster the creation of an Iraqi government that is part of their geopolitical bloc in the Middle East rather than ours.

Just talking will not paper over these big differences unless we are willing to give the Iranians and Syrians serious incentives. Accession to the World Trade Organization, one of the ideas floated by the report, is just not going to cut it. Nor will it be possible, as recommended by the ISG, to broker an Israeli-Arab peace deal that will make Iraq’s neighbors behave. Realistically, Syria would want immunity from the consequences of its assassination campaign in Lebanon, and perhaps renewed suzerainty over that country. Iran would want a tacit acceptance of its nuclear program. If the ISG thinks Iranian and Syrian cooperation in Iraq is worth this price, it should say so. But it doesn’t, making its diplomatic recommendations utterly unserious.

...

The reoccurring fantasy that a Middle East peace deal is possible and that it will cure all ills keeps popping up to send US negotiators on a fools errand. The Palestinians have nothing to offer and could not enforce any agreement that they negotiated. Religious bigotry of Palestinians and their allies keeps over riding common sense and self interest. That is one of the fallacies of the ISG report. It talks about Iran and Syria acting in their self interest as if those countries were capable of recognizing those interest and acting on them. The fact that it is in the self interest of the Iraqis to quit killing each other does not seem to have phased them. The Iranians are true believers that fear any deviancy from their deviant religious belief will get the a ticket out of Paradise. That makes concessions hard to come by. There is much more in this editorial.