Thursday, November 16, 2006
U.S. rules out Syria, turns to Iran
Region, Security, Politics
The US state department's top official on Iraq policy said yesterday that America had ruled out negotiations with Syria on curbing the violence in Iraq, but was considering talks with Iran. David Satterfield was giving testimony to the Senate armed services committee, which was reviewing Iraq policy for the first time since the Democrats' election victory and the resignation of the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
"With respect to Syria, we do not believe that the issue involving Syria's negative behaviours toward Iraq, Hizbullah, Lebanon, Iran or Palestinian radical groups is a question of lack of dialogue or lack of engagement," Mr Satterfield said. "With respect to Iran, we are prepared, in principle, to discuss Iranian activities in Iraq. The timing of such a direct dialogue is one we still have under review." His remarks appeared to conflict with the position taken by President George Bush - that the Iranians would have to bring a verifiable halt to the enrichment of uranium before talks could occur.
The Senate committee also heard from the head of the US central command, General John Abizaid, who is in charge of military operations across the Middle East and south Asia. He predicted that the next four to six months would be critical to prevent Iraq from reaching a "tipping point" and sliding into total chaos. However, he argued against a timetable for withdrawal, suggested by Democratic party leaders. "At this stage in the campaign we'll need flexibility to manage our force and to help manage the Iraqi force," Gen Abizaid said. "Force caps and specific timetables limit that flexibility." He also argued against an increase in US forces on the grounds that they would have little impact and would undermine the credibility of the Iraqi government. "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem," he said. "We need to put more American capacity into Iraqi units to make them more capable in their ability to confront the sectarian problem."
"With respect to Syria, we do not believe that the issue involving Syria's negative behaviours toward Iraq, Hizbullah, Lebanon, Iran or Palestinian radical groups is a question of lack of dialogue or lack of engagement," Mr Satterfield said. "With respect to Iran, we are prepared, in principle, to discuss Iranian activities in Iraq. The timing of such a direct dialogue is one we still have under review." His remarks appeared to conflict with the position taken by President George Bush - that the Iranians would have to bring a verifiable halt to the enrichment of uranium before talks could occur.
The Senate committee also heard from the head of the US central command, General John Abizaid, who is in charge of military operations across the Middle East and south Asia. He predicted that the next four to six months would be critical to prevent Iraq from reaching a "tipping point" and sliding into total chaos. However, he argued against a timetable for withdrawal, suggested by Democratic party leaders. "At this stage in the campaign we'll need flexibility to manage our force and to help manage the Iraqi force," Gen Abizaid said. "Force caps and specific timetables limit that flexibility." He also argued against an increase in US forces on the grounds that they would have little impact and would undermine the credibility of the Iraqi government. "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem," he said. "We need to put more American capacity into Iraqi units to make them more capable in their ability to confront the sectarian problem."
