Henry A. Kissinger: It's time to start talking

**Ray** · 17 Mar 07,, 16:47

Commenting on Iraq categorically has become a very tricky issue since it has become too complex and with too many intangibles to consider and without authentic inputs.

All said and done, Iran and Iraq are the two nations alone with whom the negotiations matter. They are neighbouring states and they are the areas from where the 'action' is coming from. Also it is from Saudi Arabia, but then Saudis are but only an appendage to the US and will acquiesce to any demand hopefully.

Iran and Syria gain a lot by keeping Iraq on the boil.

Without elaborating, suffice it to say, keeping the US attention focussed on Iraq, Syria can quietly get about subverting Lebanon, while Iran hammers away at her nuclear ambitions, because the US does not have enough troops for a ground action against Iran!

**TheChosenOne** · 18 Mar 07,, 06:03

Well spoken Ray

**xerxes** · 18 Mar 07,, 21:52

Originally Posted by joey

god damnit, india is secular.

secularism is haraam in islam and islamic country cannot be secular.

Hello Joey,

Did you by any chance send me an email. I am not sure who was it, therefore I thought asking first. If that was you, you got the right email.

let me know

**cape_royds** · 19 Mar 07,, 00:57

Kissinger's notion is that ongoing instability in Iraq is the worst possible outcome for everybody. That's his proposed "driver" to get negotiations going.

But one thing that Kissinger fails to mention is that there is more than one sort of instability that could persist in Iraq, and for the various governments involved, some kinds of instability would be preferable to others.

Another thing he fails to point out is that the presence of American forces in Iraq might be seen as one more cause of problems, rather than part of a possible solution. That depends on the standpoint of the parties involved.

In my earlier post I suggested possible "come backs" to Kissinger's line of diplomacy. e.g. some parties might prefer to wait until all US-backed political efforts fail in Iraq, before advancing any of their own. Russia, China, even Germany or France might prefer to try to pick up the pieces after the Americans have tired of the game.

Ray: I'm not sure Syria gains from having an unstable Iraq. Syria has had to cope with about three-quarters of a million Iraqi refugees. While some of the Iraqi refugees have brought skills, education, and capital inflows, many of the refugees have not. And even the capital inflows are a mixed bag, in that they have generated significant inflation in urban housing markets.

On the other hand, Syria doesn't gain much from having an American client state on its borders, whether stable or not. Again, it comes to the question of what "flavour" of stability or instability might exist in Iraq.

Is there a scenario that the USA, Syria, Iran and most Iraqi factions could agree upon? I don't know. But diplomacy is partly about gathering information; what do other parties want?

I'm not saying that the USA or anyone else should promise anything in advance. Of course not. But to promise nothing but nothing, as the Chosen One would prefer, is simply the antithesis of negotiation.