http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/890/sc1.htm
27 March - 2 April 2008
Issue No. 890
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
Who's winning in Iraq?
Having handed Iraq to Iran, the US faces a strategic dilemma of enormous
proportions, writes Mustafa El-Labbad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to view caption
Time to remember, time to reflect:(from top) American B52 bombers stand
on the tarmac at the US airbase at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, England,
2003; an Iraqi family, passing an abandoned Iraqi tank, walks back home to
Baghdad; an Iraqi girl waits and watches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 1.2 million Iraqis may have been killed since the invasion of Iraq five
years ago and many more have been displaced or have left the country. The US
invaded Iraq to seize its oil, and what it did altered the balance of power in
the region for years to come. Iraq, being a neighbour to six countries all with
considerable weight in the region, is a major geopolitical asset.
Since the Bush administration declared itself victorious in Iraq in summer
2003, resistance operations have not abated. Many inside and outside the region
may agree today that the war was a big mistake and that the political process
that followed was disastrous. But no one wants to see the Americans out yet --
no one, that is, except Iran.
The invasion of Iraq has undermined the region's moderates, such as Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, while boosting the fortunes of Tehran. Now the Americans cannot
get out of Iraq without reaching some understanding with Iran. It is almost a
classical standoff. The Americans have troops all over Iraq, but it is the
Iranians who are running the show. Neither has managed to edge the other out of
the picture. Tehran doesn't have the military wherewithal to expel the
Americans, and Washington cannot remove Iran's allies from power. The latter
not only control the country's politics, but also run their own militia inside
the interior and foreign ministries. Shia organisations such as the Supreme
Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Al-Daawa Party, Al-Fadila Party and
the Sadr current have one thing in common -- they are all loyal to Tehran.
Throughout history, Iran measured its external clout by its ability to control
Iraq. The Safavids and Qajars signed treaties with the Ottomans, in which the
provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra featured highly. These treaties gave
Iran, among other things, the right to supervise holy Shia shrines in Najaf and
Karbala. In the early 16th century, Iran's Safavid ruler, Shah Abbas, travelled
from his capital Asfahan to Najaf on foot, where he swept the tomb of the
prophet's cousin, Ali. Returning home, Abbas had himself declared on the
official currency as the "Dog of Ali's Threshold", turning an act of piety into
a political claim. Within the span of three centuries, Iran signed with the
Ottomans 14 treaties all tackling the issue of Iraqi borders.
The US occupation of Iraq gave Iran a rare opportunity to spread its influence
inside Iraq. Through its Shia connections and military and financial means,
Tehran has more influence today in Iraq than it ever had in Ottoman times.
The Iraq-Iran war, started by Saddam Hussein, while fomenting divisions within
Iraqi society, gave Iran the incentive to forge strong alliances within Iraq.
Iran was hoping for an opportunity to turn things around in Iraq; the Americans
provided it.
For all their differences, the Americans and the Iranians had to sit down and
talk about Iraq. Washington was pushing the Iranians on the nuclear front in
order to make them give way in Iraq. But Iran, aware of its advantage, wanted a
serious quid pro quo. Iran also talked to Germany, France and the UK, but the
talks failed. This is because Iran wanted international recognition of its
regional role. This was something the Europeans couldn't promise; only the
Americans could do that.
Iran has infiltrated Iraqi politics under the very nose of the US occupation.
In Iraq, the Iranians need no help from the Americans. But in the region, they
do. The Iranians cannot have international recognition of their regional role
without a green light from the US. Until then, Iran will keep obstructing the
US every step of the way, from Iraq to Palestine.
Iran has its ambitions, but it is not unaware of its limitations. The Iranians
know that they can frustrate the Americans in the region, but they need the
Americans for their regional role to be officially recognised. This is the
nature of the current standoff in Iraq. Iran is not going to allow a US-backed,
Sunni-dominated, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad. And the Americans are not
going to allow Iraq to fall under Iran's control. For the time being, the
Americans are still hoping to leave Iraq in the hands of a government that
would keep the Iranians at bay. And the Iranians want the Americans to turn
around and run.
Over the past few months, the Bush administration has adapted its negotiating
tactics to some extent. But because of its lack of political imagination and
poor knowledge of the region, it isn't making much headway. The Americans have
had some success, however, with Sunni resistance battling pro-Iranian groups.
And for now Washington is keeping a truce of sorts with Tehran, promising not
to strike Iran without UN approval.
The occupation of Iraq has adjusted the outcome of the Iraq-Iran war, turning
it from a draw into a victory. The Iraq-Iran war may have ended 20 years ago,
but the Iranians are reaping the fruits -- without having to fire a shot.
Washington started a war that it doesn't know how to end. At one point, the
Americans will have to recognise that the Iranians are not going to turn tail
and run. Tehran is not only spearheading resistance to US-Zionist schemes in
Lebanon and Palestine. It is the ultimate hand behind Iraq's politicians.
<<_iraq62.jpg>>
