..."Qatarneh: Of course Bush is seriously concerned about the growing sectarian conflict in Iraq -- and the effect it is having on American public opinion. It is also true that the administration is unhappy with the Iraqi government and is beginning to see Maliki's government as incompetent and inept. But the Iranian initiative upstaged Bush. Washington has no direct contacts with Iran, meaning the meeting on Monday between Talabani and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the impression that the US was being sidelined even by its allies in Baghdad.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the meeting part of a US shift in strategy in the region?
Qatarneh: Nothing significant will come as a result. I don't expect the administration will announce any changes in strategy until it sees the results of the Pentagon's review of US options in Iraq as well as those of the Iraq Study Group.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would the region be better off were the US to completely withdraw, or does the Middle East need a strong American presence?
Qatarneh: Beyond the question of larger US presence versus withdrawal, a new atmosphere for change is developing in Washington after the recent Congressional election. After taking over both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats have publicly discussed reinstituting an oversight committee and starting investigations into defense spending. They have also hinted at investigations into the Bush Administration's conduct of the war. All of this will make it hard to sustain a "stay the course" policy in Iraq. Against this background, I believe that Iraq is a case for the United Nations, with full and unrestricted backing from the European Union. The UN has to take over the country. Such a huge undertaking would involve giving Iraq a similar status to Kosovo. Iraq's sovereignty would have to be put temporarily into the hands of the international community."
No comments:
Post a Comment