Washington- As the Obama administration embarks on the different sets of defense challenges it faces in the Middle East, particularly ending the war in Iraq and containing the Iranian nuclear ambitions, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Colin Kahl explains in an interview with Al-Hayat, Washington's strategy in addressing those issues. Kahl, who participated in high level delegations to Israel and Syria this summer, says that Tel Aviv despite its reservations about U.S. diplomacy towards Iran, “has not threatened to launch military attacks in the near term”, and sees withdrawal plans from Iraq still on track and unaffected by the last signs of violence. Following is the Q and A: -What do you make of the security situation in Iraq, in the wake of the bombing we saw last week? Obviously, we are following events closely and troubled by the violence last week. However, we still need to keep it somehow in perspective, the number of attacks is substantially lower than they were couple of years ago, and there is no pattern or cycle feeding on itself. Thus far, even with these periodic high profile attacks, we haven't seen people lose confidence in the Iraqi security forces or turn into the militias, and engage in ethno sectarian retribution. The bombings, nevertheless, will be a wakeup call for the Iraqi security. -Do you think the Iraqi government was overconfident in its security capabilities? I think the jubilation in Iraq on National Security Day after the repositioning of U.S. forces out of the cities (on June 30th ) was genuine. That is what success looks like. We always knew there will be good days and bad days. While, the Iraqi forces have performed very admirably, millions have gone to the pilgrimage safely, they'll have to make some adjustment to their tactics. I suspect that if there is some degree of complacency, the Iraqi security cannot afford to be complacent. -What does this mean for the US withdrawal plans? It is important to remember that the contours for withdrawal were established by the previous (George Bush) administration. The security agreement (between U.S. and Iraq) provides December 31st, 2011 to withdraw completely, and had June 30th, 2009 as the milestone date to leave the cities. What the President (Barack Obama) did, is clarifying the period in between.The recommendations from the commanders on the ground were to have a fairly modest drawdown in 2009 recognizing that there is still challenges, and so as to have a robust presence to assist in the elections in January 2010. Once the new government gets seated, we would accelerate the drawdown. There is nothing that has happened in Iraq so far, that caused our commanders to fundamentally alter their recommendations to the Secretary of Defense or the President. We do, nonetheless, have an agreement with the Iraqis, and if anything is to be fundamentally changed in the timetable, it will come upon the request of the Iraqi government. Nothing so far has put us off plan. -How do you assess Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's job? When Maliki first came to office in 2006 there were questions about him from inside Iraq, and candidly from inside the US government. If you recall former NSC advisor Stephen Hadley memo that was leaked to New York Times, had expressed doubts about him. Since 2008, however, we have seen a stronger and more confident Maliki. The way he went after the Mehdi Militia, in Basra, Sadr City, and later in Ammara, revelead not only confidence, but also a willingness to go after the Shia militias. A lot of Iraqis saw that as a turning point about him, in becoming a national leader, and not favoring one sectarian group over another. In the provincial elections as well, he ran on a national platform. The thing to look for in the coming months is what kind of coalition he puts together and what makes his platform… Our message to all Iraqis is to move Iraq past an age of ethno-sectarian divisions, it is important for all coalitions to be based on platforms rooted around interests rather not identities. -How was your visit to Syria? It was a good visit. We had productive conversations, on the path of continuing a dialogue we started in June with the Syrians about the need for us to cooperate together to address the threat that extremists networks pose to the region. That includes al-Qaeda and other extremists groups that flow through Syria into Iraq, and extremists groups that pose a threat to the Syrian government itself and groups that are active elsewhere. I think as our forces draw down, Syria has an interest in seeing a stable and secure Iraq and have commercial and energy ties with Baghdad. It's in their government's interest not to let fighters and facilitators into Iraq. -Are they doing that? The jury is still out. Our best intelligence suggests that the flow of foreign fighters across the border is down considerably from where it was a year or so ago. That's good news. The reasons behind that, however, is open to some debate. Part of it is because Al-Qaeda network inside Iraq has been pretty disrupted: some of the operations that Al-Qaeda is focusing on globally have shifted to another theater, whether it'd be in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or Yemen or other places. The demand for al-Qaeda fighters is decreasing; and another part of it is that the Syrians have taken some steps. -What do you make of recalling the Syrian ambassador from Baghdad? It is related to the bombing. After the videotape confession by a ring leader in Iraq suggesting he is former Baathist and has ties to people in Syria, this has created a diplomatic spat. Maliki made a point while in Damascus last week to tell the Syrians not to allow Iraqi Baathists to formant violence and instability in Baghdad. We're still early in this process and we'll have to see how it plays out. -Regarding the Baathists, last March, Maliki had a plan to reintegrate former Baathists back into the political system under a different name but then later he withdrew the whole legislation. What would you like to see from Iraq on that matter? First of all the decision is theirs, it's up to the Iraqi government and the vision that Iraqi leaders have for their society. The President (Barack Obama), said he'd like to see Iraq as an accountable and representative country that lives in accordance to the rule of law and reflects all of Iraq's diverse ethno-sectarian communities. That means there is a significant role that Sunni Arabs need to be playing in government. What we encourage the Iraqi government is to take steps that show meaningful integration of the Sunni Arab community into the institution of government, that means the security institutions, and important ministries. It sends a message to the Sunni community that they will not be left out. Ambassador Crocker used to say:“the Shia fear the past, the Sunni fear the future and the Kurds fear both”… the communal groups have a long history, and the Iraqi leadership has to have a single Iraqi vision for everyone that emphasizes Iraqi identity. One of the litmus tests will be their outreach to Sunni communities. IRAN -There is a growing fear among Arab governments that Iran might take over Iraq after the U.S. withdrawal. How do you address this? It is clearly a sense that one gets when traveling the region, especially among Sunni Arab neighbors. There are couple things that push back against that narrative. One, I think it underestimates the power of Iraqi Nationalism. Seeing Maliki becoming more national, the last provincial elections, and that parties which are closely affiliated with Iran did not perform very well. We have to keep in mind the bloodiest conflict in the late twentieth century is fought between Iran and Iraq and there were Shia on both sides. There is a degree of Arab nationalism that provides a certain antibody to Iranian domination. I think if we can keep the Iraqi government itself and in its institutions strong then it s unlikely that Iran will dominate Iraq. The second point is that if Arab governments are concerned about Iran filling the void, then go to Baghdad. We have this conversation with Saudi Arabia all the time. Saudi Arabia had clearly showed that it can push back Iranian influence in places like Lebanon. They have the motivation, and the resources to make sure that Iraq doesn't tilt towards Iran. -You've been to Israel lately. On the nuclear issue with Iran, do you fear that Israel would go and strike unilaterally before the end of the year if negotiations don t start. You'll have to ask the Israelis what their intentions are. The signals that they are sending in the press and some that we are hearing are based on two concerns. One that they are very concerned about Iran's nuclear program, they see it as a significant and some would argue as an existential threat. They show reservations on whether diplomacy can solve the impasse. But they are not threatening to launch military attacks in the near term as far as I can tell. Our policy is fairly clear, Secretary (Robert Gates) and Chairman (Admiral Milke Mullen) have stated many times that military action at this stage would be destabilizing in its effects. Israel is a sovereign country and will make its own calculation. However, we have vital interest in this region, and because Israel is a friend of ours and a strong ally, we would expect as they're going through their calculations that are necessary to advance their interest, they would factor in ours. -Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has talked about a defense umbrella extended to countries in the region to counter Iran's nuclear ambition, can you tell me more about this. Does it mean an increase in military aid? She clarified her remarks and said Iran has a choice. They can choose to come to the table and have a talk about their nuclear program. We are willing to be on the table, no strings attached, to have a conversation about nuclear program and try to find a diplomatic solution. And if they do that, then the door is open to improving the relations with us, sanctions being reduced or eliminated, investments flowing…all of these things, these offers have been on the table for a long time. But we are also as clear; if Iran decides not to go in that direction, then it is going to face increasing international isolation. The Iranian quest for nuclear capability is in part driven by some calculation that it will make them safer. We don t think that's right. It is likely to make them less safe, in part because it'll create huge suspicion among their neighbors, and it is a threat to other countries. So we work closely with our allies in the Gulf and in the region to build up their defense capabilities, and not offensive capabilities, we are talking about air and missile defense so they can protect themselves. The message to Iran is that pursuing the path of isolation and continued confrontation in the region; the neighbors will build up, and it is not going to make Iran safer.
