Iraq and the US: surge + Annapolis + NIE on Iran = Baker Hamilton report

Don’t you think there is something intriguing about the consecutive occurrence of the Annapolis conference and the NIE report on Iran’s nuclear intentions? After all, in less than 7 days the US administration has maneuvered an implicit foreign policy U-turn. What is more surprising, however, is that this short succession of developments coincides perfectly with the first anniversary of the Baker-Hamilton report (also known as the Iraq Study Group Report), which was released on the 6^th of December 2006.

Willingly or not, US President George W. Bush, has celebrated the report’s anniversary by laying a solid groundwork for the implementation of all its recommendations including the most sensitive ones engaging Iran and Syria.

Proposing an “internal approach”, the Iraq Study Group recommended that “the Iraqi government … accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security...and [that the] United States significantly increases the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops…”. That has been done and seems to succeed!

The report also proposed a different “external approach” that would include “a new diplomatic offensive” engaging Iran and Syria. Annapolis, on the one hand, sent the unmistakable signal that Syria had graduated from the axis of evil. Facts on the ground in Lebanon, and Iraq indicate that Annapolis was in fact the public culmination of an ongoing process. The latest NIE report, on the other hand, has taken the heat and military urgency away from the Iranian “file”, and instantly out-flanked the Iranophobic hawks in Washington. The administration can now contemplate talking seriously with Iran in a more constructive atmosphere.

Finally, the Baker-Hamilton report highlighted that “the United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict”. By all accounts, Bush is now doing this; both with Annapolis, and with his recent announcement that he will visit the Middle East in January 2008.

The facts are clear and all point in one direction: President Bush has decided to implement the most salient recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report. And if you are tempted to doubt the sustainability and depth of this change of cap, be reminded of two things. Firstly, that not only the policy has changed, but also the people implementing it. Ronald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz are all gone ! Secondly, the NIE was not released by mistake, or without prior approval of the President, Secretary of State, and Defense Secretary. They all knew the report’s outcome since the end of October, if not before. Allies of the US, such as France, the UK, Germany, Turkey, and Russia, judging from their non-reactions, were also briefed.

Although the administration’s motivations behind the policy shift include fascinating topics such as the mid-term election defeat, the upcoming Presidential battle, and bi-partisan dynamics, I favor considering its many implications, of which five are crystal clear to me.

One, Bush is as serious as he can be about the Palestinian Peace process and is likely to put all his weight, plus the little of Condoleeza Rice, behind it. The fact that Syria and Iran are now “engaged” reduces the downside risks emanating from the Hamas. The Baker-Hamilton report mentioned commitments to Afghanistan and some redeployment from Iraq in 2008, Bush will make good on this as well.

Two, the administration has done away with the “doctrine of unilateralism” and it can be sure to reap the benefits of that in Europe, Russia, the Sunni Middle East, and in non-Chinese Asia. Work the UN’s effectiveness, including passing resolutions against Iran, will benefit from this.

Three, The real lame duck in the White House will be Dick Cheney. From Cheney’s viewpoint, the NIE report has done to foreign policy what the mid-term election defeat and the Scooter Libby scandal did to domestic policy; it has discredited and silenced him. I wouldn’t be surprised if the wise men of the GOP convinced him to resign “for the sake of his ailing heart”.

Four, bi-partisan commissions, in a context of embattled White House and split congress, seem to be a constructive policymaking tool. The congress should consider putting up such a platform to decide on a “way forward” for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Finally, President George W. Bush, has demonstrated unsuspected political acumen in dealing with the one of the US citizen’s biggest concern: how the unsuccessful war in Iraq affects the country’s standing. This indicates that Bush is intent on winning back public opinion, probably for the sake of the GOP. If he succeeds, and he can, the presidential contest will be much tighter than predicted and maybe a straight loss for Democrats that have spent a lot of energy and time blocking the President since they won the mid-term elections. I am no fan of Bush, and I do not think that the GOP deserves a third term in the White House, maybe that is why I can’t avoid noticing that they are doing the right things to give the Democrats a very, very hard time in the run-up to November 4, 2008.