Interview with Thomas Barnnet

Latest interview with Tom

Iraqi journalist Hemin Hussein Lihony interviews Tom:

HH: How do you see the the world after Bush?

TB: If the strategic paralysis created by having the U.S. military tied-down in Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't enough to discredit Bush-Cheney's unilateralism and self-limiting quest for primacy among the world's great powers, then certainly the current global economic crisis makes the following realization stunningly clear: we live in an interdependent world in which America cannot deal with any sizable problem--be it security or economic--without cooperating with this era's many rising powers.

Fortunately, we now have a president who knew that all along.

What was your reaction when Obama was elected president?

I voted for the foreign policy conservative (Obama) because I did not want to replace one radical (Bush) with another (McCain).

I think Obama is a systems-level thinker who explores the full repercussions of his decisions before making them. In this, the first truly global recession of a truly globalized economy, such contemplation before acting is essential.

Can we say now Iraq became a model for the region?

I have always believed Iraq to be a fake state stitched together from three nations by the Brits several decades ago, so any genuine move toward federalism is most welcome. I do worry, though, that as America draws down its military, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be greatly tempted to revive their proxy wars between Shia and Sunni in the south. For now, federalism consists of Kurds ruling Kurds, Sunni running Sunni, and Shia running Shia plus Baghdad. That might be a stable outcome, if not for Iran's ambitions and the House of Saud's fears.

Many think that the Obama administration wants a strong PM like Maliki, so the Kurds are fearful of another "Saddam". Do you think a strong central government works in Iraq any more?

Not for the Kurds, clearly, and probably not for the Sunni tribes so long as the Shia run Baghdad.

It is not yet clear what Maliki and the Shia and Iran will tolerate in this regard, and many of Maliki's steps suggest he has ambition for a more unitary state.

So we wait and see.

How do you see the Kirkuk issue considering the Kurds strongly reject compromise?

Virtually every newborn nation ends up settling for less territory than it originally wanted. That happened to the U.S. In 1783, Turkey in 1922 and Israel in 1948.

I think events will force the Kurds to consider being satisfied with their three current provinces. If the Kurds cannot abide this outcome, then I foresee conflict that will put the KRG's very existence at risk.

When it comes to start-up nations, the old saying still holds: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Many think that America has no policy for the Kurds because Kurdistan is in a regional vacuum? What do you think?

I think Americans forget the Kurds because no American troops are stationed there or die there. If you want to be remembered in the days ahead, I would suggest hosting some U.S. troops permanently--before they're mostly gone.

Do you think Obama can do some thing regarding the peace process in the Middle East considering the rightist radicals won the Israeli election?

No, I do not.

So long as Israel has a monopoly on weapons of mass destruction in the region, I expect Iran to continue pursuing nuclear weapons, triggering the same response from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Then the strategic summitry will begin. That multilateral process will be forced upon the locals by outside great powers nervous over such strategic instability. At that point, I believe we will have the makings of a regional peace, including Arab recognition of Israel and the 2-state solution.

Until such a stand-off is reached, I expect no progress whatsoever.