Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, July 06, 2009

Iraqis Project Hopes, Fears onto Biden;
Biden Firm that US will Engage Iran; If Israel wants an Attack, must carry it out Itself

The top myths in the press this weekend about Vice President Joe Biden are that he was rebuffed in Iraq when he offered his good offices with regard to effecting Arab-Kurdish reconciliation, and that he gave Israel a green light to attack Iran. Neither thing appears to be true.

So what really happened? Biden was given the job of working on Iraq reconciliation precisely because most elected Iraqi leaders want reassurance that the US is not abandoning the country to its fate.

Biden met with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, with Vice Presidents Adel Abdel Mahdi and Tariq al-Hashimi, and talked on the phone with President Jalal Talabani. The NYT reported Biden saying,

“To quote one of the four principals with whom I met: ‘With your concerns with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, we were concerned we were moved to the bottom shelf,’ ” he said. “And so I said, ‘Well, you’re not. And evidence of that is, as the vice president of the United States I’m here talking to you.’ And it was clear that they – it was like, ‘Yeah, we get it.’ ”


On ABC This Week with George Stephanopolous, Biden explained what exactly his mission was in Iraq this weekend:
' one of the reasons I'm here, George, is to push the last end of that, which is the need for political settlement on some important issues between Arabs and Kurds and among the confessional groups. And I think we're well on our way . . .

What we offered the prime minister, as well as the speaker, as well as the two vice presidents, was that to the extent -- let me give you an example. The United Nations has started a process to deal with what they called the "disputed internal borders." And that is the debate between the Kurds and the Arabs as to where the line is.

Kirkuk is probably the biggest flashpoint. And we were asked that we would -- would we be helpful to the United Nations in doing this? I was further asked that would I communicate to the Kurdish leadership, who I have a close relationship with, that their passing a constitution through their parliament in Kurdistan was not helpful to the process that was under way. '


So the conflict over the disposition of the oil-rich province of Kirkuk, among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, has heated up in recent months, as this detailed Observer report shows.

This conflict has the potential to provoke an Arab-Kurdish civil war in the north and to draw in Turkey (and maybe also Iran and Syria).

Biden's task is to use diplomacy to settle this issue before it can tear Iraq apart.

On the one hand, Az-Zaman writing in Arabic maintains that Biden's offer of mediation between the two sides was received lukewarmly and not in the way the Americans had hoped for.

On the other hand, Biden according to the NYT is seeking a new discourse that will underline the central Iraqi role in their security, downplaying the American connection.

The two reports seem contradictory because high Iraqi politicians are themselves sometimes at odds over the relationship with America. Or, as Biden suggests, some politicians may be aiming their talking points at the Jan. 2010 parliamentary elections, and so seeking to maintain an image in public of independence and sovereignty even as they behind the scenes seek US support and cooperation.

A complicating factor is the growing dispute between the Arab members of the federal parliament and the parliament of the Kurdistan Regional Government. The civil Kurdistan parliamentarians are working on a new constitution that Arabs see as threatening the unity of Iraq.

Biden was asked by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to lend his good offices to resolving those affairs. He initially had planned a trip to the Kurdistan capital of Irbil, but this weekend's massive sandstorm knocked him out of it, and he had to speak to the Kurdistan leaders by phone.


As for the other news of the weekend, I think Biden's remarks on Israel and Iran were aimed at underlining the independence of US policy-making toward Iran. He underlined twice that the US would not alter its own posture toward Iran, regardless of what others did. That he also said that the Israelis are sovereign and that the US could not stop them from launching a missile strike on Iran, is just the United Nations Charter. I.e. it is boilerplate. In my view the significant bit is this:
' BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues. '


So what Biden was really saying is that the Obama administration intends to engage Iran diplomatically, and that if anyone wants Iran attacked they will have to do it themselves. This is not a green light to the Israelis, who hardly need one. It is a tough message to the right wing of the Israel lobbies that the Obama administration is not going to launch any hostilities with Iran, even after the hard line power grab of three weeks ago.

Oh, and the statement may serve as a reminder to a recalcitrant Iran of what might happen to Tehran if it refuses to negotiate in good faith over its nuclear enrichment program. (By the way, that there is no good evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead, and that its current technological capacity is too limited for it to dream of such a thing any time soon, was again underlined by incoming International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano.

Meanwhile, the real administration position on hostilities with Iran was clearly stated by Adm. Mike Mullen, which is that they would produce enormous instability (implied is that such instability would be bad for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan).

In my view, Biden watchers still for the most part haven't gotten him right.

End/ (Not Continued)

24 Comments:

At 4:22 AM, Blogger gdamiani said...

Biden. He really said...

They're entitled to do that.

Incredible not even Bush ! On what legal basis ? The law of the jungle ?

 
At 4:37 AM, Anonymous Alex_no said...

It is interesting to see how the internal conflict in Iraq is now defining itself as a struggle between the KRG and the rest, as represented by Baghdad. It is no longer a free-for-all.

As I've said before, this development does not bode well for the Kurds. We're going back to the war with the Kurds that Saddam had.

because most elected Iraqi leaders want reassurance that the US is not abandoning the country to its fate.

I think you are getting this the wrong way round. It was probably the Kurds who were asking for the intervention by Biden.

By the way, I saw yesterday that the KRG has its own representative in Washington. Curiously enough it is Talebani's son. That says it all really.

 
At 6:44 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

There's no UN Charter sovereign right to "preemptively" strike IAEA-watched nuclear facilities that contribute to a nation's "capability" to make nuclear weapons.

 
At 7:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Cole: To your comments you could have added the Biden's statements were obviously plastic, disingenuous.
Everyone knows that there is a very thin line, if any, between the US/Israel governments.

 
At 7:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juan Cole,

Concerning Vice President Biden's visit to Iraq and his clumsy knack to stick his foot in his mouth:

1) D.Williams of Bloomberg remarked:"VP Joseph Biden warned Nuri al Maliki on July 3 that the U.S. might disengage from the country if it reverts to sustained violence..."

2) And Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh clearly stated concerning Mr.Biden's comments:
"The [Iraqi] political situation won’t accept that the United States intervenes in an internal issue, whether that issue is reconciliation, relations between various Iraqi groups or between the [self-ruled Kurdish] region and Baghdad..."

3) Ali al-Dabbagh noted: "The US [Obama] administration is concerned about the absence of progress on some political issues in Iraq and this is clear...But the prime minister said that these are internal issues and it is the Iraqis who will handle the matter and the interference of non-Iraqis in these issues will create unnecessary complications and problems..."

Well, I guess 3 strikes and you are out, unless you happen to be Joe Biden.

James Sexton

NB. Iran's PressTV is having a holiday from its own problems thanks to Mr.Biden's Iraqi visit and maladroit comments.

 
At 7:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

About the green light, I appreciate your reading of Biden's comments and hope you are correct. Alas, a man from Mars might wonder just how it would be that the US, which makes possible so much of Israel's war machine, which occupies one of the countries on the likely flight path, could possibly be so disinterested in what "sovereign" Israel would do?

Any Israeli military attacks on Iran will have severe negative consequences for the US. US forces in Iraq, for starters, become sitting ducks.

Israel needs a firm NO from Biden, (like what Bush issued last July), not easily misunderstood lines about "you do what you want."

Lieberman and company might well interpret that as fine, we'll start the war.... and then "you" (as in US) will be on your own if you want to finish what we started for you."

I think then you are being too gentle on loose-lips Biden.

 
At 8:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Biden's key message to the Iraqi's was that the US will not take sides anymore. This is the exact opposite to Bush's tactics of sorting the Iraqi politicians according to their closesness to the Americans, and supporting the vavorites against the rest.

Bush's approach led to the Kurdish warlords and the Hakimists, who were top of the list, going for extreme demands. So the new policy is essential to even out the field and get the fear of losing into the heads of the Kurds for the first time -- Hakim is a spent force now and is no longer an issue.

The second key message was that the US will not stay even if violence rises. This means that the Kurds cannot force US troops to stay by stirring up trouble. Qubad, the son of Talabani and the KRG lobbyist in Washington, has been very vocal recently about the necessity to renegotiate the 2011 exit timeline if violence rises in Iraq. Biden is saying if you did that then its your problem and we are leaving regardless.

 
At 9:29 AM, Blogger Roger said...

Ok, Professor. We know you respect Biden: he reads your blog. But he is also one of the leading hawks on support for Israel, and this statement could also be construed as washing the administration's hands of any Israeli attack. A more prudent response on Biden's part would have been similar to Adm. Mullen's warning that an Israeli attack on Iran would have unintended consequences with the implication that it would not be in the interests of either Israel or the U.S. I think the Times was correct in its assessment that this will be interpreted in Israel as a green light, even if - as you say, they hardly think they need one.

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Pete Dain said...

Boilerplate or not, you should have noticed, as far as Biden's words are concerned, that it is not only against international law to launch an unprovoked "missile strike" against another country, but in this case also against American law, since U.S. law prohibits the sale of weapons for other than defensive purposes.

You and I both know that American weapons are frequently used by Israel for purely offensive purposes, in most cases directed against civilians (Israel's recent Gaza massacre, for instance), and that neither the Obama administration nor its predecessors have ever shown even the slightest embarrassment with Israel's illegal use of American weapons, but you could at least have pointed to the illegality of Biden's remarks about Israel's right to strike Iran (with American weapons).

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger omen said...

a surprising poll:

Dan Williams
Reuters


OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Only one in five Israeli Jews believes a nuclear-armed Iran would try to destroy Israel and most see life continuing as normal should their arch-foe get the bomb, an opinion poll published on Sunday found. The survey, commissioned by a Tel Aviv University think tank, appeared to challenge the argument of successive Israeli governments that Iran must be denied the means to make atomic weapons lest it threaten the existence of Israel.

Asked how a nuclear-armed Iran would affect their lives, 80 percent of respondents said they expected no change. Eleven percent said they would consider emigrating and 9 percent said they would consider relocating inside Israel.

Twenty-one percent of Israelis believe Iran "would attack Israel with nuclear weapons with the objective of destroying it," the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), which commissioned the poll, said in a statement.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_ID=10&article_ID=103021&categ_id=2

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger sherm said...

" BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."

I think one has to consider the fact that the US is totally committed to the defense and survival of Israel. So if Israel bombs Iran and as a result a real war breaks out between Israel and its enemies, we will be in it, on Israel's side, whether we like it or not.

The notion of sovereignty is a little thin when the US takes the position that Iran cannot be allowed to have a home grown nuclear power capability because it might result in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. While we we help Israel to hide its nuclear arsenal in broad daylight.

The neocon notion of sovereignty is that only the US has it its purest form. All other nations must accept the notion of "limited sovereignty", i.e. they are sovereign in so far as their action do not harm "US national interests". And the neocon notion has become widely accepted and embraced.

 
At 10:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A U.S decision to allow its proxy to attack Iran could well prove to be the start of WWIII and the worst foreign policy error of the 21st century. Once those ICBMs are fired from Israel, with or without nuclear warheads, then, arguably, everyone living today will suffer the consequences.
From Alaska to Mexico and from London to Oman and Karachi – the world will have years to reflect on our stupidity and the arrogance of our elected representatives.

 
At 10:50 AM, Blogger omen said...

mullen's use of "instability" is still too vague for some people to grasp. even before this statement came out, i thought the reason this administration doesn't want to unduly alienate ahmadinejad and khamenei (despite the mistreatment of their own people) was not only because of the nuclear issue, but because they were cognizant that iran could retaliate if it felt cornered and negatively impact our efforts in iraq & afghanistan. our troops stationed there make us vulnerable to iran.

 
At 11:13 AM, Anonymous Daniel P said...

Bradley Burston has an interesting piece in Ha'Aretz criticizing the current state of Israeli politics:

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098187.html

 
At 2:00 PM, Blogger abby said...

"That he also said that the Israelis are sovereign and that the US could not stop them from launching a missile strike on Iran, is just the United Nations Charter"

How nice! Have they amended the UN charter to allow only Israel to launch wars of aggression?

And Mr. Cole, surely you are aware that what "green light" means is that Israel is free to bomb Iran WITHOUT ANY REPERCUSSIONS from the US (i.e. no loss of aid, no sanctions, no public condemnation, nothing)

 
At 2:59 PM, Blogger Libby Spencer said...

I had the same take on Biden's remark about Israel and Iran. As I tweeted to Greg Mitchell yesterday, I didn't read it as his expressing approval for the idea. He was saying, in his inimitable way, "How would we stop them."

 
At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, it seems that stability has yet to come to Iraq:

Terrorist Attacks in Iraq Still Plague Civilians

I fear that this type of violence will continue, and perhaps escalate, now that the U.S. military has "withdrawn."

 
At 4:22 PM, Anonymous Thomas said...

Biden's statement about an Israeli attack on Iran bears an uncanny resemblance to the US ambassador in Baghdad who before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait allegedly stated that this was an internal Arab affair.

I don't know what Biden was thinking when he made such a statement, but it can only be interpreted as a green light for an Israeli attack, and by making the statement in public USA will be seen as having supported it.

 
At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Supposing you're right that Biden is being misinterpreted by "Biden-watchers"--well, that's Biden's fault. It's his job to make clear statements regarding US policy and his statements were anything but clear.

 
At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would it be rude of me to point out that many US newspapers and broadcast news operations used to have extensive overseas staff (not just reporters), but the general decline of professional journalism has led to reduction or elimination of those staffs. Thus they are much more likely to misinterpret events and statements, and hence to misinform the public.

 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger omen said...

is biden being consistent with this statement? i heard he's previously warned israel against attacking iran.

would biden say the same thing in reverse? would he likewise nonchalantly declare iran is a sovereign nation, free to decide what's in their best interest if they regard israel a threat?

 
At 8:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

that its current technological capacity is too limited for it to dream of such a thing any time soon, was again underlined by outgoing International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad Elbaradei.

Uh. The interview you link to is dated February 19, 2007.

 
At 9:00 PM, Anonymous tuddies said...

The US continues to send money to Israel despite its constant and countless violations of international law. We are supporting an increasingly racist regime in Tel Aviv and providing economic cover for continued colonization and expansion into their neighbors land. Obama says nothing while Israel indiscriminately attacks civilians in Gaza and the only response to constant threats of violating more international laws regarding Iran is 'if you must'. ??????

The position of the Obama administration is clear. Unflinching support of Israel no matter how illegal the regime becomes, even at the expense of American interests.

An attack on Iran would not happen without support from the US. I would expect that logistical and intelligence support and the post-crime defending of Israel with negative votes on UN Security Council resolutions condemning unprovoked attacks on a sovereign state.

I don't expect the American foreign policy designers to give up their dreams of hegemony quietly. We will see more senseless bloodshed from the US/Israel coalition.

 
At 3:21 AM, Blogger LarryE said...

My own take about Biden's statements is similar to Dr. Cole's. I find it hard to accept that this is just another episode of "Biden's bloopers" because he referred to Israel as a "sovereign nation" four times in the course of three consecutive answers. That doesn't come across as a slip of the tongue.

I suspect that what's going on is that Israel is getting itchy to use political turmoil in Iran as an opportunity to attack, Obama is trying to hold them back at least for now, and Biden was putting the word out, just in case, that if Israel does attack, it's nothing to do with us.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home