As Washington seeks the help of Iran and Syria in Iraq, they will ask for a price, writes Salah Hemeid Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moallem held talks this week in Baghdad with top Iraqi officials in a landmark visit to the Iraqi capital, the first by a top Syrian official since the overthrow of the former regime of Saddam Hussein by the American-led war in 2003. Al-Moallem's visit came at a time when the debate over Iraq in Washington is intensifying, with reports that the Bush administration might be willing to start seeking help from Iran and Syria in order to stabilise the deteriorating conditions in Iraq. During his three-day talks, Al-Moallem -- whose government has been accused of funding the anti-American and anti- government insurgency -- reportedly offered Iraqi authorities the support of his country to end the spiraling violence. Even before Al-Moallem's departure, Iraqi officials said Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad will meet Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a weekend summit in Tehran. Ahmadinejad's spokesman played down the summit reports but acknowledged an invitation for Talabani to visit Iran to work on improving bilateral relations. For the Syrians and the Iranians, observers argue, fuelling the violence while denying doing so is a means of putting pressure on Washington. Both Syria and Iran are well aware of the Iraq debate underway, and the fact that influential figures outside the American administration, such as the two former secretaries of state, James Baker and Henry Kissinger, are in favour of involving Syria and Iran in Iraq. So far, President Bush has been reluctant to follow their advice, thus showing unwillingness to offer Damascus and Tehran incentives to modify their positions. What the Syrians and the Iranians want is no secret. They want the Americans to ease the pressure on their countries and to treat them as key regional players. For example, the Syrians want Washington to keep its wide ranging interest in Lebanon. The pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper quoted a Syrian Baath Party official on Monday as saying Damascus wants the Golan Heights back as a reward for its cooperation. Tehran, whose standoff with the West over its nuclear programme, sees this as a timely moment to remind Washington that it has a role to play in Iraq -- for better or for worse. But while sectarian violence continues to rage in Iraq, dreams of a quick fix for America's adventure in Iraq are fading. American and Iraqi forces combed through a Shia militia stronghold in Baghdad this week searching for dozens of Iraqi hostages kidnapped after intelligence indicated that an armed group was holding some of the scores of Iraqis who were kidnapped from a Higher Education Ministry office in Baghdad last week. After five days of searching Sadr City -- a densely-populated Shia stronghold -- US and Iraqi soldiers backed by helicopters came up empty- handed. The mass kidnapping was widely believed to have been the work of the Al-Mahdi Army, the heavily-armed militia of the anti-American Shia cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr. The kidnapping has raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's commitment to wiping out the militias of his prime political backers: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Sadrist Trend, believed to control Al-Mahdi Army. Elsewhere, there have been abductions and minibus ambushes with the victims found dead in fields or floating in the Tigris River: torture followed by murder, severed heads left in cardboard boxes and hundreds of bodies found dumped in the street. Bombs have exploded in crowded markets, main shopping streets, mosques, churches, police and army recruitment centres. Shias blame Sunni groups, such as Al-Qaeda terror group and militias run by Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein' regime for such attacks. Last Sunday, The Islamic Army (IA) in Iraq, one of the country's main Sunni groups, called on its fighters to escalate their strikes. The call for escalation came after initial reports suggested that members of the IA were holding talks, in Jordan, with American diplomats trying to seek ways of persuading leaders of the IA to lay down arms and take part in the government. President Bush acknowledged the difficulty of the mission in Iraq, but insisted that the United States will not quit before succeeding. "The (Iraqi) government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it," Bush said during a news conference last Saturday in Vietnam. He called the war in Iraq just one part of the struggle between radicals and extremists and people who want to live in peace. Also, Vice President Cheney rejected on Saturday calls for a military withdrawal from Iraq, telling a group of conservative lawyers that retreat would disappoint America's allies and embolden terrorists. "To get out before the job is done would convince the terrorists once again that [we] will change our policies, forsake our friends and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail," Cheney said. The top US commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, indicated last Saturday that the situation in Iraq is difficult, clearly implying that the US is facing major challenges in its efforts in Iraq. Last week Abizaid had said before the Congress that there might be a need for an increase in US troop levels in Iraq. This, he said, might be needed to intensify the training and capability of the Iraqi army, so that they can assume the task of fighting the insurgents with more capability. He also resisted the call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, saying that such a move would possibly increase sectarian violence. He added that any cap on US troop numbers or timetables for withdrawal would limit US military flexibility in addressing the current challenges in Iraq. At the same time, however, Abizaid advocated relying more heavily on US transitional military advisers embedded with Iraqi forces. Meanwhile, President Bush has formally launched a sweeping review of his country's Iraq policy, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies. According to a report published in The Washington Post last Monday, a study commissioned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace, is suggesting three basic options: send in more troops; shrink the force but stay longer; or pull out. Another widely talked about bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- led by Baker III and former Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton -- is also working on recommendations that will reportedly include options such as placing America's strategy in Iraq in a broader regional context, including involving Iran and Syria. Many analysts believe, however, that America has little or no leverage on Syria or Iran to force a real change in their Iraq policies, or make them help in satabilising the country, giving its frail government a chance to take hold. Moreover, Iraq's two neighbours have always been seen, at least by the Americans -- as well as by many Iraqis -- as part of the problem. Even if Iran and Syria accepted to provide help in Iraq, they will almost certainly demand something in return. The question remains if Washington is willing, or indeed able, to deliver.
