DOCSLIB.ORG

The Iraq Study Group Absurdity and Iran by Anthony H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Iraq Study Group Absurdity and Iran by Anthony H The Iraq Study Group Absurdity and Iran By Anthony H. Cordesman May 22, 2007 Not everything dies when it should, and the Iraq Study Group is a grim example. Even at the time it was issued, it was a remarkably vacuous and unrealistic report. Its key recommendations were hopelessly impractical, and the detailed report – while good on some aspects of historical diagnostics – ended in a long list of sometimes contradictory conceptual recommendations lacking any justifications, details, and operational plans. It was at best a warning of what overblown committees seeking a lowest common denominator could not accomplish. All the Wrong Recommendations Looking back, The Iraq Study Group Report emerges as even worse. Its key recommendations never made sense. For example, there was never any chance that the development of the Iraqi Army could be rushed forward in ways that would permit rapid US force reductions, and recent months have made it all too clear that the Iraqi Army needs more time, more aid, and more US embeds and support. The existing schedule for creating an Iraqi Army already was far too fast. The months that have followed have shown it takes time, patience, and resources to build an effective military force. It takes political conciliation to allow it to operate in ways that serve the nation. Without internal Iraqi political conciliation, the Army can end up either fracturing along sectarian and ethnic lines or become a Shi’ite dominated force with a separate Kurdish force in the Kurdish area. The ISG’s recommendations to speed development of the Iraq police force to serve the same purpose of enabling faster US withdrawals were truly absurd. Somehow, this was to be accomplished by completely reorganizing the US and MNF-I police aid and training effort, taking it out of the hands of MNSTC-I and putting it back into the same civilian hands that had failed so badly that the police effort had to be taken away from them and put into MNSTC-I hands in October 2005 – after more than two years of failure. It is all too clear that the effective development of the police is even more dependent on political conciliation than the development of the Army, will take several years at a minimum to accomplish, and will immediately come up against the realities of the need for some form of effective local government and a functioning court and criminal justice system. It is equally clear that for the police to function, it must find some way to deal with local security forces, the militias, and the prospect of federalism. The ISG effectively failed to deal with two of these issues, and created an impossible deadline for abolishing the militias with no explanation of how a weak and divided Iraqi government could do this, or what would happen when they were abolished long before the police could provide security. Conciliation by Threatening a Weak Central Government? The ISG never addressed the issue of Iraqi conciliation in any meaningful way, or the level of internal civil conflict. It did not explain how its implied time schedule could avoid pushing the country towards civil war or suggest any practical ways to heal the fractures inside Iraqi society. It offered no useful plans for new incentives, and implied that a weak national government without strong Sunni participation, with a steadily more divided Shi’ite majority, and a Kurdish faction interested in autonomy, could somehow be pressured into effective action by some form of US benchmarks and deadlines. “We’ll blame you as we leave,” has since become something of a mantra for the US Congress. Then as now, however, it does not explain what the US should be prepared to do to meet its strategic interests in Iraq or the region, or deal with the fact that the US failures to prepare for nation-building and stability operations are at least as much an explanation for why Iraq is broken as any Iraqi failures. Fixing Iraq from the Outside? As for its idea of a regional conference held under US auspices to solve the problems in Iraq, this was probably the most absurd recommendation of all. The US lacked the credibility to call such a conference, and it was never clear why bringing together neighboring powers with deeply diverse interests was going to produce any unity of outside efforts, much less unite Iraq. When the Iraqi government did try to hold a similar form of such a conference under its auspices, it produced a few gestures from already friendly states, no progress in aiding internal conciliation in Iraq, and no real progress in terms of changing the attitudes of outside powers. It is true that the Bush Administration seems to have finally learned that it needs to talk to Iran and Syria, rather than demonize them. It is all too clear, however, that such dialogue may produce very limited results. Syria may be willing to deal. Alawites (16% of the population) are not Shi’ites; Syria has a strong Sunni majority (74%). The Syrian Ba’ath is largely secular and has every reason to fear Islamist extremists – Sunni and Shi’ite. In practice, however, the US and Syria need time to deal with issues like Israel, the Golan, and Lebanon – if they can deal with them at all. The best deal they can hope for on Iraq is a trade where Syria quietly cracks down on Sunni Iraqi insurgent groups operating in Syria in exchange for the US backing off treating Syria as a Pariah and ceasing to push hard on the Hariri assassination. If this happens, it will be quiet and bilateral, not something for a major conference. The ISG focus on Iran and Syria also ignored Turkey and the Sunni Gulf states. The US, Iraq, the Kurds, and Turkey have issues to resolve that are already extremely difficult and will play out over years. Iraq's national unity is a key to avoiding a Kurdish-Turkish clash and Arab-Kurdish tensions are a major problem that the US must try to address. Both require focused US diplomacy and not regional meetings. There are good reasons that a figure like King Abdullah calls the US occupation of Iraq illegitimate. Arab Sunnis see the current surge strategy as empowering Arab Shi'ites and Iraqi separatism at the expense of Sunnis and Iraq's unity as an Arab nation. These views represent different values from the US, and underestimate just how hard the US is actually pushing for conciliation and unity. They do, however, need to be acknowledged and will be critical to the future US position in the Gulf -- whether or not the US is forced to withdraw. Once again, a regional conference is perhaps the worst possible way to address such sensitive issues. Real World Prospects with Iran As for talking to Iran, the US should make every effort to have an official dialogue. It isn’t going to change the regime, it has a host of issues that it should try to address, and the entire history of the Cold War indicates it is better to talk to hostile regimes and try to prepare the way for limited cooperation and a better future. Iran has made it clear, however, that there is not going to be any grand bargain, easy progress on the nuclear issue, cutback on Iranian missile development and asymmetric forces in the Gulf, or progress on Israel and the support of anti-Israeli extremists. US and Iranian envoys are to meet in Baghdad on May 28th. However, Iran’s position on meeting with the US to talk about Iraq is hardly reassuring. Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in Mashad on May 17th that Iran only agreed to “face- to-face” talks with the US so that it could, “remind the US of its responsibilities and duties regarding security,” and to “give them an ultimatum… The talks will only be about the responsibilities of the occupiers in Iraq... They think that the Islamic Republic has changed its firm, logical, and defendable policy in rejecting negotiation with the US. They are wrong… How is it possible to negotiate with the arrogant, bullying, expansionist, and colonialist government of the US.” Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said this Friday at the World Economic Forum in the Middle East in Jordan that the only way to deal with the issue is for the US to admit that its role in Iraq is illegitimate and withdraw from Iraq and the Gulf, leaving security to Iraq’s neighbors. "We believe that sooner or later they have to decide to withdraw their troops from Iraq because that is the cause for the continuation of terrorist activities.” He went on to say that Iraqi instability and the US occupation of Iraq were the two fundamental problems plaguing Iran's neighbors, and called for a "comprehensive solution" to address both issues that really meant pushing the US out of the region. These were not low profile remarks. He spoke while sharing a panel with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit, the Bahraini Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa and Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, former ambassador to the United States. Ali Larijani said at the same meeting that the Bush administration was trying to bring Baathists back to power to create political conditions where it could leave Iraq: "Unfortunately, the Americans are under some pressure to leave faster (from) Iraq. They want some elements in Iraq to take control and they discovered the Baathists could do the job.” Larijani went on to warn that efforts at conciliation would mean, "disaster for the Iraqi people, for the Iranians, for the Kuwaitis, (and) for the region." Whatever the US might have done in talking to Iran when it seemed to have won in Iraq, and while Iran was under Khatami, it almost certainly cannot do now.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy
    Order Code RL34064 Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy Updated July 2, 2008 Christopher M. Blanchard Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy Summary Iraqi leaders continue to debate a package of hydrocarbon sector and revenue sharing legislation that would define the terms for the future management and development of the country’s significant oil and natural gas resources. The package includes an oil and gas sector framework law and three supporting laws that would outline revenue sharing, restructure Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, and create an Iraqi National Oil Company. Both the Bush Administration and Congress consider the passage of oil and gas sector framework and revenue sharing legislation as important benchmarks that would indicate the current Iraqi government’s commitment to promoting political reconciliation and long term economic development in Iraq. Section 1314 of the FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act [P.L.110-28] specifically identified the enactment and implementation of legislation “to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients” and “to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner” as benchmarks. The Administration reported to Congress on these benchmarks in July and September 2007. A draft framework law approved by Iraq’s Council of Ministers (cabinet) in July 2007 did not include revenue sharing arrangements. Iraq’s Council of Representatives (parliament) has not taken action to consider the legislation to date because of ongoing political disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: U.S. Military Operations
    Order Code RL31701 Iraq: U.S. Military Operations Updated July 15, 2007 Steve Bowman Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Iraq: U.S. Military Operations Summary Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, together with Iraqi long-range missile development and support for Al Qaeda terrorism, were the primary justifications put forward for military action. On March 17, 2003, President Bush issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam Hussein and his sons depart from Iraq within 48 hours. On March 19, offensive operations began with air strikes against Iraqi leadership positions. By April 15, after 27 days of operations, coalition forces were in relative control of all major Iraqi cities and Iraqi political and military leadership had disintegrated. On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared an end to major combat operations. There was no use of chemical or biological (CB) weapons, and no CB or nuclear weapons stockpiles or production facilities have been found. The major challenges to coalition forces are now quelling a persistent Iraqi resistance movement and training/retaining sufficient Iraqi security forces to assume responsibility for the nations domestic security. Though initially denying that there was an organized resistance movement, DOD officials have now acknowledged there is regional/local organization, with apparently ample supplies of arms and funding. CENTCOM has characterized the Iraqi resistance as “a classical guerrilla-type campaign.” DOD initially believed the resistance to consist primarily of former regime supporters and foreign fighters; however, it has now acknowledged that growing resentment of coalition forces and an increase in sectarian conflicts, independent of connections with the earlier regime, are contributing to the insurgency.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Gates on the Middle East
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 1160 On the Record: Robert Gates on the Middle East Nov 9, 2006 Brief Analysis esterday, President George W. Bush announced that he was nominating former CIA director Robert Gates as Y secretary of defense following the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Gates, currently the president of Texas A&M University, served as director of central intelligence from 1991 to 1993. In all, he spent twenty-seven years as an intelligence professional, having originally joined the CIA as an analyst in 1966. In February 2005, he announced that he had been offered the new post of director of national intelligence but had declined it. In 2004 he served as co- chair, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, on an independent task force on Iran sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. He is currently a member of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, which is expected to report shortly on alternatives to U.S. policy on Iraq. The following is a range of quotes made by Gates, or conclusions with which he has been associated, on a range of subjects related to the Middle East. On Iraq On August 24, 2004, Gates was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations: Gwetzmann: “Do you have any predictions as to how Iraq is going to turn out?” Gates: “No. We have the old line in the intelligence business that everything we want to know is divided into two categories: secrets and mysteries.” Gwertzman: “And Iraq is which?” Gates: “Iraq is very much the latter.” On Iran The following quotes are taken from the executive summary of Iran: Time for a New Approach, a report issued in July 2004 by the previously mentioned independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations: “[T]he current lack of sustained engagement with Iran harms U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dubai Initiative
    The Dubai Initiative Working Paper Securing the Peace: The Battle over Ethnicity and Energy in Modern Iraq Justin Dargin Securing the Peace: The Battle over Ethnicity and Energy in Modern Iraq Dubai Initiative – Working Paper Justin Dargin Research Fellow, The Dubai Initiative Better Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard University June 2009 SeCURIng THe Peace: THe Battle oveR eTHnICITy AnD eneRgy In MoDeRn IRAq | 1 “There is something very sinister to my mind in this Mesopotamian entanglement.” Winston Churchill letter to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, August 1920 I. Introduction This article examines the legal and political impediments to the Kurd- ish Regional Government’s (KRG) exploration and production contracts, which the central government in Baghdad has refused to recognize. The newly estab- lished Iraqi national constitution significantly opened as many petroleum-control questions as it resolved. Negotiated in 2005, the constitution not only separated branches of government, but established Federalism as its lodestar. When faced with unresolved issues over regional and national control over petroleum resourc- es, however, International Oil Companies (IOCs) function in an ambiguous legal environment that fails to clearly distinguish between federal and regional powers Article 112(1) of the constitution grants the central government a condi- tional right to “…undertake management of oil and gas extracted from present oil and gas fields…” (emphasis mine). Reflective of Iraq’s commitment to federalism, the right to manage oil fields is shared by the central government, the produc- ing governorates and the regional governments. Article 112(1) could, therefore, be construed to mean that the central government has no right to exercise authority over nonproducing fields and future fields: rights that are not explicitly granted to the federal government may be held as residual rights by the regional authori- ties.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement on Senate Confirmation of Robert M. Gates As Secretary of Defense December 6, 2006 the President's News Conference W
    Administration of George W. Bush, 2006 / Dec. 7 Statement on Senate Confirmation of Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense December 6, 2006 I am pleased the Senate has overwhelm- empowered them to successfully address ingly voted to confirm Dr. Robert Gates complex issues. I am confident that his as the next Secretary of Defense. In his leadership and capabilities will help our confirmation hearing, Dr. Gates dem- country meet its current military challenges onstrated he is an experienced, qualified, and prepare for emerging threats of the and thoughtful man who is well respected 21st century. by members of both parties and is com- I thank Chairman Warner and Ranking mitted to winning the war on terror. Member Levin for leading dignified and Throughout his career, Dr. Gates has trans- constructive hearings, and I thank the Sen- formed the organizations he has led and ate for moving quickly on this nomination. The President’s News Conference With Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom December 7, 2006 President Bush. Thank you all. Please be Security Council. I talked to him about the seated. I just had a good visit with Prime consultations I’m having with the United Minister Tony Blair. I appreciate you com- States Congress. ing back, Mr. Prime Minister. I always We agree that victory in Iraq is impor- enjoy our discussions. And I appreciate tant. It’s important for the Iraqi people; your clear view that we are confronted with it’s important for the security of the United a struggle between moderation and extre- States and Great Britain; and it’s important mism, and this is particularly evident in for the civilized world.
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpts from the Iraq Study Group Report
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 33, Number 50, December 15, 2006 fit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors Documentation are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability. The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for Excerpts from The Iraq stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neigh- Study Group Report bors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconcilia- Executive Summary tion within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own. The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is Given the abiliity of Iran and Syria to influence events no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the be improved. United States should try to engage them constructively. In In this report, we make a number of recommendations for seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the actions to be taken in Iraq, the United States, and the region. United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran Our most important recommendations call for new and en- should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect hanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influ- and a change in the primary mission of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S
    Order Code RL33793 Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy Updated September 12, 2007 Christopher M. Blanchard, Coordinator Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Kenneth Katzman, Carol Migdalovitz, Alfred Prados, Jeremy Sharp Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy Summary Iraq’s neighbors have influenced events in Iraq since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, and developments in Iraq have had political, economic, and security implications for Iraq’s neighbors and the broader Middle East. Ongoing insurgency and sectarian violence in Iraq and discussion of options for modifying U.S. policy toward Iraq are fueling intense consideration of Iraq’s future and the current and potential policies of Iraq’s neighbors. Policymakers and observers are considering a number of different “Iraq scenarios,” ranging from the resolution of outstanding Iraqi political disputes and the successful consolidation of Iraq’s government and security forces, to greater escalation of sectarian violence into nationwide civil war and the potential for greater intervention by Iraq’s neighbors. Understanding regional perspectives on Iraq and the potential nature and likelihood of regional responses to various scenarios will be essential for Members of the 110th Congress as they consider proposed changes to U.S. policy, including the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), the troop surge initiative, and annual appropriations and authorization legislation. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq released in August 2007 assessed that “Iraq’s neighbors will continue to focus on improving their leverage in Iraq in anticipation of a Coalition drawdown.” The NIE identified Iranian assistance to armed groups and the “reluctance” of Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors to support the Iraqi government as particularly problematic.
    [Show full text]
  • America at a Crossroads
    America at a Crossroads Applying the lessons of history to the challenges of today ANNUAL2020 REPORT 2018 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESIDENCY & CONGRESS CSPC Board Of Trustees Maxmillian Angerholzer III The Honorable Edwin Meese III Institute of International Education The Heritage Foundation Wayne L. Berman The Honorable Glenn C. Nye III Blackstone Group President & CEO Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress Maury W. Bradsher District Equity Richard G. Phillips, Jr. Pilot Freight Services Eli Broad The Broad Foundations The Honorable Gerald R. Parsky Aurora Capital Group Julia Nickles Bryan YPO Democracy Group The Honorable Thomas R. Pickering CSPC Chairman The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns Hills & Company Harvard Kennedy School H. Gregory Platts Jay Collins National Geographic Society Citi The Honorable Thomas J. Ridge Robert Day Ridge Global, LLC W.M. Keck Foundation Gene Riechers The Honorable Paula J. Dobriansky 1855 Capital Harvard Kennedy School The Honorable Mike Rogers Bradford M. Freeman CSPC David M. Abshire Chair Freeman Spogli & Co. CNN The Honorable David Gergen Gillian Sandler Harvard Kennedy School Galapont Dr. Malik M. Hasan B. Francis Saul III Health Trio, Inc. & NuVue Pharma Saul Investment Group, LLC The Honorable Stuart W. Holliday Pamela Scholl Meridian International Center CSPC Vice Chairman Roy Kapani Dr. Scholl Foundation KapCo Holdings Stephen A. Schwarzman The Honorable Blanche Lincoln Blackstone Group Lincoln Policy Group George Stephanopoulos Daniel Lubin ABC News Radius Ventures Gary Wilson The Honorable Mel Martinez Manhattan Pacific Partners JPMorgan Chase & Co. The Honorable Thomas F. McLarty III McLarty Associates Introduction America at a Crossroads n 2020 America faces a decisive rity as a key underlying issue cutting across all inflection point.
    [Show full text]
  • Post 9/11 Civil-Military Relations
    Post-9/11 Civil-Military Relations Room for Improvement Thomas Sheppard and Bryan Groves Abstract Civil-military relations between the president and his key military leaders carry significant implications for strategy making and war out- comes. Presidents and their national security team must prioritize prop- erly developing that relationship. Civilian leaders must understand the various biases military leaders may harbor in different scenarios, while military leaders must present the president with genuine options, serv- ing as professional advisors in the “unequal dialogue.” It is essential the next president bridge the civil-military gap—thereby facilitating greater understanding and trust. Stronger bonds of confidence between princi- pals and agents result in more effective organizations, as does the ability to figure out what works, why it works, and how to implement it. ✵ ✵ ✵ ✵ ✵ The year 2016 will mark a major transition for the US military. If Pres. Barack Obama sticks to his timetable—and all indications are he will—the last American forces will vacate Afghanistan by the end of that year, ending the longest war in American history. What will follow in Afghanistan is uncertain, but recent events in Iraq and persistent en- emy elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan paint a pessimistic picture. It is a real possibility that the blood and treasure poured into Afghani- Thomas Sheppard completed his doctorate in military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on civilian control in the early American republic. He was the recipi- ent of the 2013–2014 Smith-Richardson Predoctoral Fellowship through Yale University’s International Security Studies Program.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iraq Study Group Report
    The Iraq Study Group Report James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, Alan K. Simpson Contents Letter from the Co-Chairs Executive Summary I. Assessment A. Assessment of the Current Situation in Iraq 1. Security 2. Politics 3. Economics 4. International Support 5. Conclusions B. Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq C. Some Alternative Courses in Iraq 1. Precipitate Withdrawal 2. Staying the Course 3. More Troops for Iraq 4. Devolution to Three Regions D. Achieving Our Goals II. The Way Forward—A New Approach A. The External Approach: Building an International Consensus 1. The New Diplomatic Offensive 2. The Iraq International Support Group 3. Dealing with Iran and Syria 4. The Wider Regional Context B. The Internal Approach: Helping Iraqis Help Themselves 1. Performance on Milestones 2. National Reconciliation 3. Security and Military Forces 4. Police and Criminal Justice 5. The Oil Sector 6. U.S. Economic and Reconstruction Assistance 7. Budget Preparation, Presentation, and Review 8. U.S. Personnel 9. Intelligence Appendices Letter from the Sponsoring Organizations Iraq Study Group Plenary Sessions Iraq Study Group Consultations Expert Working Groups and Military Senior Advisor Panel The Iraq Study Group Iraq Study Group Support Letter from the Co-Chairs There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: Politics and Governance
    Iraq: Politics and Governance Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Carla E. Humud Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs March 9, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21968 Iraq: Politics and Governance Summary Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic divisions—muted toward the end of the 2003-2011 U.S. military intervention in Iraq—are fueling a major challenge to Iraq’s stability and to U.S. policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East region. The resentment of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs toward the Shiite- dominated central government facilitated the capture in 2014 of nearly one-third of Iraqi territory by the Sunni Islamist extremist group called the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL, ISIS, or the Arabic acronym Da'esh). Iraq’s Kurds are separately embroiled in political, territorial, and economic disputes with Baghdad, but those differences have been at least temporarily subordinated to the common struggle against the Islamic State. U.S. officials assert that the Iraqi government must work to gain the loyalty of more of Iraq’s Sunnis—and to resolve differences with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)—if an eventual defeat of the Islamic State is to result in long-term stability. Prospects for greater inter- communal unity appeared to increase in 2014 with the replacement of former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki with the current Prime Minister, Haydar al-Abbadi. Although both men are from the Shiite Islamist Da’wa Party, Abbadi has taken some steps to try to compromise with Sunnis and with the KRG. However, a significant point of contention with the KRG remains the KRG’s marketing of crude oil exports separately from Baghdad.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraqi Oil and Revenues from Its Sale: a Review of How Existing Security Council Resolutions Affected the Past and May Shape the Future
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 18 no.3 © EJIL 2007; all rights reserved .......................................................................................... Iraqi Oil and Revenues from Its Sale: A Review of How Existing Security Council Resolutions Affected the Past and May Shape the Future Rex J. Zedalis * Abstract The newly proposed Iraqi oil and gas legislation is currently making its way through Iraq’s political process. The specifi c content of that legislation may be criticized for a variety of rea- sons. Nonetheless, while early Security Council resolutions addressing Iraq’s oil and gas, and revenues from its sale, demonstrated extensive supervision over such by the international community beginning in the 1990s, more recent resolutions assign Iraq the kind of control that suggests its peoples are entitled to manage those resources and monies as they see fi t. At the same time, the international community cannot ignore the importance of oil and gas to the economic well-being of Iraq, and the link between economic health and the survival of that country’s nascent democracy. As a consequence, despite the fact that Security Council resolutions have seen fi t to permit Iraqi authorities to resume autonomous control over that nation’s hydrocarbons and the revenues produced by the sale of such, serious consideration should be given to the adoption of a new resolution, extending beyond the current 31 Decem- ber 2007 date Iraq’s protection against legal claims from existing and potential creditors. 1 Introduction The civil unrest that has plagued Iraq over the last couple of years may be traced to sectarian rivalry, ambitions of autonomy for specifi c regions of the country, the * Professor of Law and Director, Comparative and International Law Center, Fellow, National Energy- Environment Law and Policy Center, University of Tulsa.
    [Show full text]