Concerning ‘perverse incentives’, maybe that’s a hazard that we will run with this. It’s something that we’ll have to accept. Right now the threat posed by the Iraqi civil war is far more serious than the danger that we might become attached to Assad and Khameini and undermine potential peaceful democratic revolutions.

The quest for moral purity in Middle-East policy is mistaken and will have perverse consequences.

Similar ideas have been expressed by neoconservatives in the United States. There is, for instance, the notion that western support for dictators in the region is part of what supports Al Qaeda and undermines moderate democratic forces in the region. This notion is not entirely without its merits. Another notion is the supposed historical inevitability of democracy. These ideas form the (more sophisticated) basis for the doctrine of ‘moral clarity’ in which evil is to be fought, good to be supported, etcetera.

I would say that we have seen how this doctrine has worked out in Iraq, where historical inevitability was given a helping hand. But the glaring foreign policy failures of the US in Iran and North Korea have also shown that not engaging with the bad guys (and instead speaking with ‘moral clarity’ to the domestic press) is maybe not always such a bright idea.

In the current situation, the instability caused by the Iraq civil war could lead to a regional conflict with all of the powers involved. Leaving that alone, the instability might cause the regime in Jordan to fall, probably resulting in a civil war (not a democracy). If instability causes the Saudi regime to fall, it is possible that it will become a theocracy with a few democratic elements (like Iran). Syria might respond to instability with severe repression and possibly forced displacement of minorities. The conflict between Turkey and the PKK might flare up again, with negative consequences for the civil liberties of the Kurdish minority in Turkey.

The illiberal regimes in these countries are also the only ones who have any measure of control over the flow of weapons and fighters to Iraq. In order to prevent that they support rival factions in Iraq and turn it into a protracted proxy war, we need to deal with them.

Now I’m not saying that we should turn these countries into our allies in any deep sense. But we do need good relations in order to first keep the current conflict from spilling over and then, second, try to solve it within Iraq (either by settlement should clear factions emerge or by gradual rollback).

Important parts of the containment strategy can be achieved by the EU on its own (if it can get its act together). Solving the war within Iraq will have to be done through the UN or an ad hoc international gremium.

Europe’s leverage is limited to trade and aid. Europe’s goals have to be compatible to its means.

Consider the number of young democracies that went authoritarian during the Cold War. When the powers go shopping for allies, they want assurance that allies will remain allies, and authoritarian allies can offer that assurance in a way that elected allies cannot.

About Iraq.

It depends on the US and the state the US will be in.

What’s brewing up in the middle east is mainly a muslim intra-religious power struggle. The EU as a “christian club” is not a “neutral faction” but an “outsider” (whereas in the inter-religious jewish-muslim conflict we *can* play a neutral role).
With Shiites (Iran), Sunnis (Saudi Arabia et al.), Kurds vs Turkey/Syria/Iran(/Iraq), and the US et al. as an “outside intruder” there are more than enough factions involved to make it a mess. Adding the EU with its different agendas as another faction is IMHO not only a waste of time and money but also complicating this Gordian knot.

The EU has more than enough issues on their own: integrating the new members, the troublespots of the Balkans, issues beyond the eastern borders, migration at the southern borders etc.pp.
Not to forget that we still need a “UN reserve” for conflicts elsewhere which are easily forgotten over the Iraq conflict.

IMHO the EU should spend its resources on conflicts where it has a *realistic* chance to influence the outcome. I don’t see such a chance in the middle east right now.

The first step should be an ambitious but carefully phased in programme to support particularly Jordan and Syria with the massive amount of refugees from Iraq they have to harbour. We first need go get more diplomatic credit in the region. Working to stall any potential plans the US may have to launch an attack on Iran should also further that aim (and prevent the situation from becoming completely hopeless).