Iraq supports federalism – not partitions
Akhavi, writer for Inter Press Service, 2007
(Khody Akhavi, “Iraq: Arab Analysts Decry U.S.-Proposed Federalism Amendment” October 5, Lexis)
"The Iraqi and Arab world's reaction to the Biden Resolution has been overwhelmingly negative," said Eric Davis, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. "Even Iraq's Kurdish leaders have stated that they support federalism but not partition. This resolution has reinforced public opinion in Iraq and the larger Middle East that the United States used the invasion of Iraq as a pretext to control Iraq's vast oil wealth."
Iraq will model US federalism.
Biden, U.S. Senator, and Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations 2007
(Joseph and Leslie H., October 3, P. A23, “Federalism, Not Partition”, Washington Post)
We want to set the record straight. If the United States can't put this federalism idea on track, we will have no chance for a political settlement in Iraq and, without that, no chance for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind. First, our plan is not partition, though even some supporters and the media mistakenly call it that. It would hold Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq but one in which power devolves to regional governments, with a limited central government responsible for common concerns such as protecting borders and distributing oil revenue. Iraqis have no familiarity with federalism, which, absent an occupier or a dictator, has historically been the only path to keeping disunited countries whole. We can point to our federal system and how it began with most power in the hands of the states. We can point to similar solutions in the United Arab Emirates, Spain and Bosnia. Most Iraqis want to keep their country whole. But if Iraqi leaders keep hearing from U.S. leaders that federalism amounts to or will lead to partition, that's what they will believe
Iraq models American federalism
[John, Ph.D., Research Fellow in European Affairs, The Heritage Foundation, “Forging a Durable Post-War Political Settlement in Iraq,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1632.cfm]
A good political model for such a successful post-war Iraqi federation already exists--the so-called Great Compromise of 1787 that enabled the creation of America's constitutional arrangement among the states. In Iraq's case, this type of system would give each of the country's three major sub-groups equal representation in an upper house of the legislature in order to protect each group's interests at the national level. These political outcomes--an Iraq that can control its own political destiny and that does not threaten that of its neighbors--are critical if an Iraqi settlement is to be judged a success.
Iraqi Federalism Bad: War
A) Iraqi federalism spurs Middle East wars
Berman, vice president of foreign policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, 2007
(Ilan, “Flawed federalism; Why Biden is wrong on Iraq” The Washington Times, October 19, Lexis)
On Sept. 27, the Senate voted on Mr. Biden's proposal to "actively support" the "creation of federal regions [in Iraq], consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders." The nonbinding measure passed resoundingly, tallying up 75 votes in favor and just 23 against. Ever since, theconcept of Iraqi "federalism" has been at the center of a political firestorm. The White House has expressed its opposition to Mr. Biden's plan, with President Bush himself calling it a "very bad idea." Iraqi political leaders have done the same, and President Nouri al-Malikihasgone so far as to dispatch a formal letter of protest to the senator. Mr. Maliki's aggravation is understandable. After all, Iraq's post-Saddam constitution does recognize the country's inherent "federal system," but Iraq's democratically elected government has opted to preserve strong central control as a bulwark against separatism and instability. This effort may be experiencing problems, but the Biden plan, with its call for a transfer of authority away from Baghdad, looks more than a little bit like Congress is second-guessing Iraq's sovereign choices. Then there is the security dimension. Lawmakers have expressed optimism that Iraqis will embrace the "Balkan model" of devolved governance that was implemented in Bosnia in the 1990s, even though they admit that the Middle East has no experience with it. But a different outcome is equally possible. Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions run deep, and new boundaries are not likely to erase either historical grievances or resource competition taking place on the ground. Rather, "federalism" could soon give way to real partition, and the United States may find itself managing not one unstable state but three consolidated fiefdoms at war with one another - with ample assistance from interested third parties such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
B) That goes global and nuclear.
John Steinbach, nuclear specialist at the Center for Research on Globalization, March 2002
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."