By: Elie Chalhoub
Published Monday, June 23, 2014
The curtains have fallen on the last scene in the settlement farce in the region. War has extended its tentacles into Iraq and along the borders with Jordan and Saudi Arabia. A new proxy war is raging in Iraq, under the specter of a takfiri monster that threatens to devour everything in its path.
"We strongly oppose the intervention of the US or anyone else in Iraq. We do not agree on this, as we believe the Iraqi government, nation, and religious guides are capable of putting an end to the strife. And they will do so by God's will."
This short statement by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has set the hallmarks of the next stage, promising a hot summer in Iraq and the region. It concluded a series of rapid developments, thrusting Iraq and the region into a dark tunnel with no end in sight.
The past three days witnessed an extensive exchange of messages between parties concerned with the Iraqi situation. They all came to one conclusion: The United States wishes to exploit the ISIS assault on Iraq to change the balance of power in the country, returning through the front door, after its 2011 withdrawal.
The message of the US was clear: We are ready to intervene militarily, if a national unity government is formed and is not headed by current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. This would be the beginning of restructuring the regime to allow for a "genuine partnership" between Iraq’s various components.
The decision was accompanied by a series of field measures undertaken in the past few days. It started with delegating Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk to handle the situation from Baghdad, with an operations room set up in Amman, in addition to rumors about US troops deploying on the ground inside Iraq.
By Friday, it was clear that the message did not change the situation in Iran. Its administration had been assessing the situation and looking for alternatives. The lines of direct communications with the US were still open in the fifth round of nuclear talks in Vienna. It is likely that Iran delayed its response to get a feel for the US position on the file.
However, the negotiations failed and "moderate" Iranian diplomat Mohammed Javad Zarif warned that such a result would push both sides to go back to their old positions. Without a doubt, the results also reflected Barack Obama's attempts as exploiting the Iraqi situation to bolster the American position against Iran. But this was something that Iran was determined not to give up, even if it showed some leniency in negotiating the details of its nuclear rights. The Iranian decision was announced by Khamenei almost 24 hours after the return of the negotiators to Tehran and presenting their full report to its leadership.
Iran’s insistence on keeping Maliki is not related to his persona. He was never their preferred choice [for prime minister], even at the height of the political crisis gripping Iraq for the past several months. However, Maliki's bold foreign policy decisions and his treatment of regional files provided him with leverage, although the Iranians know about his domestic failures.
Before the elections, Iran told all the Shia factions calling for Maliki's removal to wait for the ballot boxes. This was one of the reasons why they entered the elections each with an individual list, pledging to join the parliament under the banner of the National Alliance. The biggest number of seats went to Maliki and the internal opposition to him became stiff. But the Iranians replied by saying "agree on what you want within boundaries: no government outside the National Alliance, no government without the Supreme Council, and no government without the consent of the [spiritual] guide."
Back then, the US was sending several messages expressing objections to renewing Maliki’s term. But Iranian officials did not give it immediate attention, since it did not have any support on the ground. They only cared about reconciliation between the Iraqis and they knew that no other prime minister could reach power, unless chosen by Maliki, who heads the largest parliamentary bloc, with a core of 93 MPs and could reach 120 in some calculations.
But after the US made him a target of the current battle in Iraq, Maliki became key for victory or defeat. It was no longer a matter of internal balances, turning into "a US-Qatari-Saudi plot to strike the axis of resistance."
Speaking of "conspiracy," several points need to be highlighted. First, it is no longer important to look for the reasons and causes that are behind the current situation and whether it was individual groups or joint operations rooms. The results and consequences are more important. However, it can be said with reasonable accuracy that the situation in Iraq blew up after the successful elections in Syria and Iraq, which kept Bashar al-Assad and Nouri al-Maliki in power.
The Syrian elections were pivotal in revealing the limitations in place faced by the armed groups. Although they believed it was vital to abort the voting process, they did not succeed in doing so.
The alternative was ready in the Iraqi arena, which has been witnessing the failure of the regime on all developmental, military, social, and political levels, since 2003. This is in addition to the long-time crisis gripping the country. It was a the natural place for an act of revenge.
The autonomy of ISIS does not mean they are not supported by several regional powers, based on an intersection of interests. The Saudis want to take back Baghdad and have a stronger hand against Iran. Turkey is looking for a regional victory after a series of defeats, including its wishes for a subsidiary Kurdish state to drain its oil. Qatar is searching for its lost regional role. There is also Israel, which hopes to quell any agreement between the US and Iran and divide the area into an ethnic and confessional mosaic. Finally, America, who wants to prevent the revival of the Silk Road or anything else, aims to create a Sunni crescent to cut through the Shia Crescent.
Regardless of each side's share in setting off the crisis, they all aim to exploit the situation. However, Washington's position was striking. It knows it could employ ISIS tactically, as long as it is kept under control. However, it is also convinced that the group would be a threat to its national security in the long run. The same goes for the Saudis, who suffered the consequences of Arab Afghans. So how will they handle a takfiri giant growing on its borders?
In conclusion, everyone tried to exploit recent developments to compensate for their losses in years past. All of a sudden, the situation was transformed from an "ISIS assault" into "Sunni revolutions," under the heading of "8 out of 10 fighters are Baathists and Saddam's soldiers and only two [out of 10] are Islamists.” Then came the offers to quell the new phenomenon, if certain conditions are met, "to turn back the clock several years."
Iran remained alone, seeming more anxious to keep Iraq intact. Certainly, this is not due to the naive argument that it prefers to control all of Iraq. Iran knows that the breakup of Iraq will lead to a Kurdish state, which will be like a new Israel on its western borders. It will also mean there will be a takfiri state launching an unending war of attrition.
On Sunday, Iran's Supreme Guide set the vision and path to be taken by his country. This points to a new war, which will rage in Iraq and extend beyond Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. The forecast is for a hot summer, whose temperature could be more than some are estimating.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition
.
Related
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment