|
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said Iraq would do its 'utmost' to improve ties with Iran, the Iranian Students' News Agency reported Dec. 31. Sabri said the two countries need to establish good neighborly relations and that recent exchanges of prisoners of war would lay that groundwork.
Iran and Iraq are old enemies, but the United States poses a common threat that is much more pressing. Iraq is desperately looking for help in case the U.S. attacks. Although Iran gave diplomatic support for the U.S. campaign against the Taliban, it has more to gain by backing Iraq. Tehran has several options, and it could complicate any U.S. plans for a small-scale assault on Baghdad similar to that on Afghanistan.
Iran could not stop the U.S. from attacking Iraq. But it could force Washington to commit to a more politically and economically expensive military campaign than it might desire. This would sufficiently raise the stakes to make the United States think twice about attacking Iraq.
Sabri isn't trying to fool the Iranians with cheap rhetoric: He's making normalization of relations a state policy....
His words were echoed by the visiting Hassan-Ali Ebrahimi, leader of the Refugees Affairs Office of Iran's Interior Ministry, who said that 'Tehran and Baghdad are determined to do all within their capabilities to secure the interests of both nations,' according to IRNA. Sabri also said he intends to visit Iran in January 2002.....
While Iranian military planners undoubtedly dream about the collapse of the Iraqi regime, they are more concerned about the spread of U.S. military power in the Middle East. The United States has tight alliances with Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and several Gulf States. And now Washington has a military presence in Afghanistan (Iran's eastern border) and Central Asia....
So what could Iran do to keep Hussein alive and the United States out of Iraq? Diplomatic pressure is simple and relatively painless. With many in the Middle East already susceptible to anti-U.S. propaganda, Iran could easily make the case that Washington is trying systematically to conquer the Muslim world.
Tehran could also refuse to support any U.S. military action against Iraq. Although this would not stop a combined assault by Turkish forces in the north and Kuwait-based U.S. forces in the south, it would put a serious crimp in a plan floating through Washington...
Another tactic Tehran could use would be to threaten to cease its fledgling cooperation on anti-terrorism. Iran could very easily redeploy its Revolutionary Guard military advisers to Lebanon, Bosnia and elsewhere, after having pulled them from those areas after Sept. 11. Tehran also could organize attacks on Israel by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and several Palestinian militant groups it influences.
If Iran wished to commit itself further, it could provide Iraq with weapons and logistic support. Both nations use a great deal of Soviet-style weaponry. Iran could provide a secure location to stockpile weapons and supplies out of the range of U.S. aircraft. It could also provide backup command and control systems, like communications and radar facilities, which were key targets for U.S. bombers in the Persian Gulf War. This wouldn't prevent Iraq's destruction, but it would make it more expensive for the United States.
Iran would risk retaliation from Washington if it were to engage in such overt military cooperation, but the United States is hardly willing to attack both countries at once. Still, this option would be the most provocative and is therefore the least likely one for Tehran.
Iran could not support the Iraqi regime against a full-scale U.S. military assault. But it could multiply the difficulties for a limited attack that used Iraqi opposition forces, forcing the United States to decide if it wishes to commit to a larger Gulf War-style campaign.
Stratfor.com
|
|