“The day after any military attack against Iran would be a
disaster– not just for the Middle East region, but for international
stability.” This was the clear warning I heard voiced by Syria’s
Foreign Minister, Walid al-Mouallem, during a 70-minute interview I
conducted with him in Damascus on February 28.
I had asked Mr. Mouallem whether he had any fears of an imminent
military attack against either his country, or Iran. “About
Syria, I don’t have any such fear,” he said.
complicated. There is no logical analysis that could support the
idea of such illogical behavior. But honestly, no-one can claim
to predict the behavior of this American administration.
For example, they are saying all the time, ‘All options are open’, and
they are mobilizing all these forces. No-one knows why!
And then, no-one knows what will happen the day after any attack on
Iran. Especially, since the Americans didn’t have any strategy
for the day after the invasion of Iraq!
The day after any military attack against Iran would be a
disaster– not just for the Middle East region, but for international
stability. Think of the effect on oil prices, and the effects
that would have on Europe and Japan, and on the stability of the
economies of all the Gulf countries. Think of the consequences of
Iran’s possible acts of retaliation against American interests
worldwide. What would be the effects on the ‘Global War on
Terror’? What would happen to American soldiers in Iraq and in
Afghanistan? These are the questions that need to be answered
before there is any military decision.
I hope there will be no
military decision. These differences can be solved through
political means, through direct negotiations.
I asked his view of the meeting planned for Baghdad March 10, where a
representative of the U.S. administration will sit down for the first time with
representatives of both Syria and Iran. (The Iraqi
government has invited all of its neighbors and all five members
of the Security Council to this conference.)
Mouallem confirmed that his deputy would
be attending the meeting. He added,
rally the goodwill of the neighboring countries and to express support
for Iraq’s security and stability. For Syria, it’s our vital
interest to achieve security and stability in Iraq. In Syria, we
have more than a million displaced Iraqis. They are a real burden
on our economy, and on our education and healthcare systems.
We’re not getting any support from anyone for this– including the
Iraqi government.
This is a humanitarian issue, and it’s increasing in gravity on a daily
basis, because of the terrible security situation in Iraq.
He explained that because Syria hopes that these displaced persons
can speedily return to their homes in Iraq, his government is reluctant
to refer to them as refugees, calling them instead “displaced perople.”
Mouallem described the Bush administration’s decision to attend the
Baghdad conference as,
direction. But it’s not the full step we are expecting Washington
to reach to. The full step will be when the Americans decide to
have a comprehensive dialogue on regional issues, starting with the
Arab-Israeli issue, which is the core issue in the region.
Had he seen any signs yet that this was happening?
positive signs we’ve seen from America have been the Baker-Hamilton
report and some signs coming from some of the members of the Senate and
Congress who have been visiting, and from some scholars.
I asked what policies Syria supported in order to
de-escalate the tensions in Iraq.
news daily. And I don’t see any news from Iraq or Afghnaistan
that tells me the situation is good…
We speak about the need for an agreed timetable for a US withdrawal
from Iraq– agreed between the US and the Iraqi government.
This timetable would have two or three dimensions: One for the
rebuilding of the Iraqi forces, with a timetable that allows Iraqi
units to replace the foreign forces there. The second would be
that it would provide a hope
for the many Iraqis resisting occupation, to tell them not to use force
because they could be sure that by a fixed date they would see the
independence and unity of Iraq. So that would help the job of
rebuilding the security forces. Thirdly, this would announce that
it is a duty for the Iraqi forces and also for all of Iraq’s neighbors
to help assure this process.
We are not talking this way about a withdrawal in order to offend any
party, but it’s our thinking based on the realities there.
… No-one is thinking about imposing defeat on the US
forces. On the contrary, we are trying to find an honorable
withdrawal for them. Thus we say the timetable should be agreed
with the Iraqi authorities. Of course, it must be a total
withdrawal, since one of our central goals is to achieve Iraqi
sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity, in accordance with UN
Security Council resolution 1546.
He later declined an invitation to be more precise about the total
length of the timetable for the US withdrawal.
Syria’s views on all these matters are of course extremely significant,
given the country’s pivotal position in the Middle East and given the
fact that it enjoys good relations with not only the present government
of Iraq but also many strands of the Iraqi opposition including many
trends inside Iraq’s Sunni-Arab society.
(Mouallem talked about a number of other important topics, too, including Lebanon and the Palestinian issue.
I’ll post more material from the interview on JWN as soon as I get the
time. Now, I’m afraid I need to run to something else. By the way, I’m now back in Jordan.)
EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana on his visit to Syria:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070314/wl_mideast_afp/mideasteusyrialebanon_070314182140