Can Iraq maintain a neutral position between Washington and Tehran?
By Pshtiwan Faraj
When Shiite factions and parties declare that it will stand with Iran, it is actually defending itself and its existence, and the same applies Sunni forces and parties that see the US withdrawal from Iraq as the loss of their own influence and political interests.
In the past few hours, tension between the United States and Iran has escalated to a dangerous level, after Iran dawned a US $ 120 million reconnaissance plane drone. The United States was almost near to retaliate to Iraq by a military strike, but President Donald Trump announced it was canceled at the last minute, Before the incident, the two sides entered into tough diplomacy by targeting camps with US soldiers in return for tougher sanctions on Tehran.
In the end, the latest tension indicates that Iraq will be the main arena for any military conflict between the two sides. It seems that the Iraqis are unable to convince the two conflicting fronts enough of the premises that the government has repeatedly declared that it will not be with one side against another and will not allow the use of its territory to launch an attack on any party. Iraqi political dynamics in fact are still not qualified to achieve this goal for several reasons, mostly due to the foggy political decision in Iraq.
Since its formation in October 2018, the new Iraqi government has adopted a new foreign policy based on neutrality of crises. President Barham Saleh sought to stabilize it regionally and internationally through shuttle visits to all neighboring countries with conflicting axes. Economic ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Egypt.
"The neutrality, according to the current Iraqi situation, means to be with Iran, not to provoke America's anger, it is definitely distorted, but it is reality," he said, stemming from the failure to build a governing institution capable of understanding the country's transformation. After 2003, the country moved to the parliamentary system, which gives the political blocs the possibility of controlling the decisions of the state and even violating them whenever they see their interests require it.
The biggest problem is that each side of the conflict wants to pull Iraq aside to himself and counter the other. Without understanding the facts after 2003, America has not realized the fact that Iraq must have normal relations with Iran by virtue of geography and social and religious ties. Turning Iraq into an enemy of America, ignoring the fact that Iraq needs America and the major countries to overcome the stage of establishment and later construction, development and economic.
According to this equation, Iraq suffers from a big problem, and its attempts to keep the stick from the middle seem unsatisfactory to both Tehran and Washington, and this problem bears the bulk of the internal crises suffered by Iraq, especially the prevalence of corruption and lack of services and mismanagement and the absence of development plans for a country ravaged by conflicts over the last four decades.
In the midst of the burning crisis between the United States and Iran, Iraqi politicians are trying hard to prevent their access to the military confrontation on the one hand and to prepare for the scenario of the outbreak of confrontation through self-restraint and neutrality on the other. This is the most complex situation in the dynamics of the political scene. Forces, parties and armed factions are divided. Openly standing with Iran against the United States, and waiting for an American attack on the neighboring country as a long-awaited opportunity to escape Iranian influence.
Both positions are dangerous and do not take into account the repercussions of the military confrontation on Iraq, but the two positions are not justified. The political process after 2003 failed to find a national political identity, failed to strengthen the role of citizenship and produced a sectarian war ten years ago.
The absence of political identity based on internal national factors forced the ruling parties to seek alternatives to protect their existence - external support. This is why most parties agree not to legislate a fair electoral law that guarantees the real representation of Iraqi voters.
When it declares armed factions and Shiite parties and forces that it will stand with Iran and even defend it, it is in fact defending itself and its existence not about Iran, as there are no guarantees for these forces to keep them and continue if Iran's influence receded and believes it may be marginalized or retaliated in the absence of Iranian support.
The same applies to the Sunni political parties and forces, which believe that the US withdrawal from Iraq will make them lose their influence and political interests. For this reason, they reject the idea of withdrawing US troops from the country for fear of swallowing them from the other side.
If there is an Iraqi political identity that possesses national independence and maintains a clear space for all regional and international parties and is able to distinguish support and cooperation from influence and hegemony, we have found the Iraqi parties divided between two teams in a sensitive and dangerous circumstance passing through the region now.
Both the United States and Iran shoulder a large part of responsibility for the absence of Iraq's national political identity. Each side has sought Iraq to be a full ally of the other, an idea that has proved difficult to achieve and produced a weak Iraq that reflected its weakness over the overall situation in the Middle East.
Moreover, the Iraqi parties did not establish a social contract with the voters, and these parties, especially those coming from abroad, remained alienated from the citizens. They did not set a strategy for docking into internal reality. They found political influence based on an electoral law that allowed them to continue even though they did not represent the reality of voters, which is the only option for the existence and continuity of Iraqi state.
Finding a way out of this problem through political institutionalization takes time while the drums of war kneel at the gates of Iraq. What is required now is to adhere to the strictest restraint of the factions and parties in expressing escalating positions and support the efforts of the government, which have established serious blocks in Iraqi foreign policy. Self-sufficiency and commitment to neutrality and to contribute to any diplomatic efforts to defuse crises.
When Shiite factions and parties declare that it will stand with Iran, it is actually defending itself and its existence, and the same applies Sunni forces and parties that see the US withdrawal from Iraq as the loss of their own influence and political interests.
"Iraqi neutrality according to the status quo means to be with Iran not to provoke the anger of America, it is definitely distorted, but this is the reality" In this statement, a senior Iraqi politician shortens the position of Iraq from the burning crisis between Washington and Tehran.
In the past few hours, tension between the United States and Iran has escalated to a dangerous level, after Iran dawned a US $ 120 million reconnaissance plane drone. The United States was almost near to retaliate to Iraq by a military strike, but President Donald Trump announced it was canceled at the last minute, Before the incident, the two sides entered into tough diplomacy by targeting camps with US soldiers in return for tougher sanctions on Tehran.
In the end, the latest tension indicates that Iraq will be the main arena for any military conflict between the two sides. It seems that the Iraqis are unable to convince the two conflicting fronts enough of the premises that the government has repeatedly declared that it will not be with one side against another and will not allow the use of its territory to launch an attack on any party. Iraqi political dynamics in fact are still not qualified to achieve this goal for several reasons, mostly due to the foggy political decision in Iraq.
Since its formation in October 2018, the new Iraqi government has adopted a new foreign policy based on neutrality of crises. President Barham Saleh sought to stabilize it regionally and internationally through shuttle visits to all neighboring countries with conflicting axes. Economic ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Egypt.
"The neutrality, according to the current Iraqi situation, means to be with Iran, not to provoke America's anger, it is definitely distorted, but it is reality," he said, stemming from the failure to build a governing institution capable of understanding the country's transformation. After 2003, the country moved to the parliamentary system, which gives the political blocs the possibility of controlling the decisions of the state and even violating them whenever they see their interests require it.
The biggest problem is that each side of the conflict wants to pull Iraq aside to himself and counter the other. Without understanding the facts after 2003, America has not realized the fact that Iraq must have normal relations with Iran by virtue of geography and social and religious ties. Turning Iraq into an enemy of America, ignoring the fact that Iraq needs America and the major countries to overcome the stage of establishment and later construction, development and economic.
According to this equation, Iraq suffers from a big problem, and its attempts to keep the stick from the middle seem unsatisfactory to both Tehran and Washington, and this problem bears the bulk of the internal crises suffered by Iraq, especially the prevalence of corruption and lack of services and mismanagement and the absence of development plans for a country ravaged by conflicts over the last four decades.
In the midst of the burning crisis between the United States and Iran, Iraqi politicians are trying hard to prevent their access to the military confrontation on the one hand and to prepare for the scenario of the outbreak of confrontation through self-restraint and neutrality on the other. This is the most complex situation in the dynamics of the political scene. Forces, parties and armed factions are divided. Openly standing with Iran against the United States, and waiting for an American attack on the neighboring country as a long-awaited opportunity to escape Iranian influence.
Both positions are dangerous and do not take into account the repercussions of the military confrontation on Iraq, but the two positions are not justified. The political process after 2003 failed to find a national political identity, failed to strengthen the role of citizenship and produced a sectarian war ten years ago.
The absence of political identity based on internal national factors forced the ruling parties to seek alternatives to protect their existence - external support. This is why most parties agree not to legislate a fair electoral law that guarantees the real representation of Iraqi voters.
When it declares armed factions and Shiite parties and forces that it will stand with Iran and even defend it, it is in fact defending itself and its existence not about Iran, as there are no guarantees for these forces to keep them and continue if Iran's influence receded and believes it may be marginalized or retaliated in the absence of Iranian support.
The same applies to the Sunni political parties and forces, which believe that the US withdrawal from Iraq will make them lose their influence and political interests. For this reason, they reject the idea of withdrawing US troops from the country for fear of swallowing them from the other side.
If there is an Iraqi political identity that possesses national independence and maintains a clear space for all regional and international parties and is able to distinguish support and cooperation from influence and hegemony, we have found the Iraqi parties divided between two teams in a sensitive and dangerous circumstance passing through the region now.
Both the United States and Iran shoulder a large part of responsibility for the absence of Iraq's national political identity. Each side has sought Iraq to be a full ally of the other, an idea that has proved difficult to achieve and produced a weak Iraq that reflected its weakness over the overall situation in the Middle East.
Moreover, the Iraqi parties did not establish a social contract with the voters, and these parties, especially those coming from abroad, remained alienated from the citizens. They did not set a strategy for docking into internal reality. They found political influence based on an electoral law that allowed them to continue even though they did not represent the reality of voters, which is the only option for the existence and continuity of Iraqi state.
Finding a way out of this problem through political institutionalization takes time while the drums of war kneel at the gates of Iraq. What is required now is to adhere to the strictest restraint of the factions and parties in expressing escalating positions and support the efforts of the government, which have established serious blocks in Iraqi foreign policy. Self-sufficiency and commitment to neutrality and to contribute to any diplomatic efforts to defuse crises.
Comments
Post a Comment