Henri J. Barkey
{
"authors": [
"Henri J. Barkey"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran",
"Türkiye",
"Iraq",
"Jordan",
"Syria",
"Kuwait",
"Saudi Arabia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
U.S. Troop Withdrawal Missing A Political Strategy
A U.S. withdrawal plan for Iraq that creates a political vacuum will invite Iraq's neighbors to shape the nation's internal evolution in accordance with their own security considerations. The U.S.-Iraq deal for combat troop withdrawal by 2011 lacks a much needed political strategy for neutralizing the influence of Iraq’s neighbors.
Source: Washington Times

By most accounts this pact is the result of the Maliki government's increasing confidence in Iraq's armed forces and U.S. domestic pressure for withdrawal.
There is, however, a gaping hole in this deal: It has no strategy to contend with Iraq's neighbors - some of whom are capable and willing to undermine Iraqi stability.
Without a political strategy that counteracts their influence or engages them in the process, a withdrawal agreement is not worth the paper on which it is printed.
Iraq's neighbors are not just bystanders: almost all have specific interests and, through surrogates, have been actively involved in Iraq. These activities have often been at odds with U.S. and Iraqi government wishes.
A withdrawal plan, which creates a political vacuum, invites intervention by Iraq's neighbors to shape the nation's internal evolution in accordance with their own security considerations.
This, of course, is not as easy as it seems. Two of Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, have been at loggerheads with Washington. Lines of communication are all but closed and replaced by complete mistrust.
Tehran and Damascus firmly suspected that regime change in Baghdad would extend to them as well. Washington consistently has accused both countries of supporting Iraq's insurgency; and in the case of Iran, accusations include the transfer of arms and training for insurgents.
By contrast, the other four neighbors - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait - are long-standing allies of the U.S.
Iran and the Saudis are eyeing each other nervously in Iraq. Riyadh, already unnerved by Iran's nuclear program, sees Iran attempting to use a Shia-dominated Baghdad as an ally in its quest for regional dominance. Tehran, in turn, fears Saudi-supported Sunni jihadist movements and the emergence of a pro-U.S. Iraq aligning itself against Iran.
Turks, Iranians and Syrians would like to see the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) subjugated to Baghdad's control, if not disappear altogether. In their minds, a Kurdish province in an Iraqi federal state could inspire secessionist impulses among their own much-maligned Kurdish populations.
Saudis and other Arabs are unsympathetic to federalism, believing that Kurdish aspirations will one day lead them to secede and carve out another non-Arab country in the region or the Shia will create a superfederal region of their own.
The U.S. and Iraq's neighbors, however, do share one common goal: Iraq's territorial integrity. Where they disagree is on the internal arrangements. This provides a foundation on which Washington can begin a diplomatic initiative to construct a regionwide understanding.
The most important first step is to work with the allies individually to unscramble conflicting U.S. and Iraqi concerns on one side and Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian and Kuwaiti ones on the other.
Once progress is made, Washington can bring Iraq and the four neighbors together to constitute an informal front. Such a strategy would strengthen United States' weak hand and make it easier to engage the Iranians and Syrians.
Washington should urge the Saudis to stop their nationals from joining the fight in Iraq and also halt the transfer of Saudi petrodollars to jihadist networks all over the world.
The Saudis, in exchange, may require new security understandings from the United States, confirmation of Iraq's place in the Arab fold and agreement between Iraq and the Persian Gulf countries on security arrangements against Iran.
Iraq will want the Saudis to use their considerable influence over Sunni tribes to get them to commit to working with the central government after a U.S. withdrawal.
Similarly, among Turkey, the Iraqi Kurds and Baghdad, there is a deal to be made.
Iraqi Kurds want assurances from Turkey that it will not intervene in Iraqi domestic matters against them and that Ankara will ensure their access to European markets for their oil and other products.
Turks want the Turkish Kurdish insurgent group, the PKK, to be forced out of northern Iraq and for the KRG not to take the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. These are hard but not impossible problems to resolve.
However, it would require a diplomatic game plan that puts together the elements of a win-win strategy for all involved. The United States should want the KRG to become an institutionalized part of Iraq and not an independent state.
For this to happen, the Turks must recognize the KRG, while Iraqi Kurds must work with the United States if the PKK is to be forced out of northern Iraq. Turkey must act as a reliable conduit for Iraq Kurds to sell their products to international markets.
Finally, a peaceful and legitimate resolution of the multiple claims to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk has to emerge without the intervention of outside powers.
About the Author
Former Visiting Scholar, Middle East Program
Barkey served as a member of the U.S. State Department Policy Planning Staff, working primarily on issues related to the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean, and intelligence from 1998 to 2000.
- Winners and Losers in Turkey’s ElectionArticle
- The Road to Turkey’s June Elections: Crises, Strategies, and OutcomesArticle
Henri J. Barkey
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont
- Taking the Pulse: Can European Defense Survive the Death of FCAS?Commentary
France and Germany’s failure to agree on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) raises questions about European defense. Amid industrial rivalries and competing strategic cultures, what does the future of European military industrial projects look like?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Macron Makes France a Great Middle PowerCommentary
France has stopped clinging to notions of being a great power and is embracing the middle power moment. But Emmanuel Macron has his work cut out if he is to secure his country’s global standing before his term in office ends.
Rym Momtaz
- How Can Europe Renew a Stalled Enlargement Process?Commentary
Despite offering security benefits to candidates and the EU alike, the enlargement agenda appears stalled. Why is progress not being made, and is it time for Europe to rethink its approach?
Sylvie Goulard, Gerald Knaus