The Real Winner of the War in Iraq (by Arash Rowshanzamir)

"In a historic irony, Iran's most dangerous enemy of all, the US, invaded Iran's neighbor with an eye to eventually toppling the Tehran regime- but succeeded only in defeating itself." – Juan Cole

When George Bush decided to take unilateral action against the sovereign nation of Iraq, he did so for several reasons. There was, of course, the claim that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, coinciding with accusations pertaining to collaboration with terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. At the time, these claims were supported by many on the right. Even so, there were some humanitarians within the Republican camp who argued that an invasion of Iraq was necessary, not because it would curtail the threat of WMDs or international terrorism, but more importantly, because it would facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein's authoritarian Baath'ist regime. These self-acclaimed philanthropists would go on to claim that in the end, the real winner of the War in Iraq would be the newly-liberated Iraqi people, and that the Iraqi paradigm would spearhead the democratization of the entire Middle East. Those on the center-left debated that the only winner of the War in Iraq would be the American neo-conservatives who would use the war to impose their own political and economic agendas revolving around the democratization of political systems and the liberalization of national oil industries.

It has been two and a half years since the instigation of the war, and although some of these predictions have come true, it is the effect the war has had on the general Middle East that is most intriguing. There is no one that can deny the fact that the security situation in Iraq remains abysmal, and that the potential for a sustainable democracy is still several years, if not decades away. Furthermore, America's economic right has reaped the benefits of American unilateralism, but it has done so at the expense of tarnishing its reputation world-wide and further exacerbating anti-Western fanaticism in countries such as the aforementioned Iraq and neighboring Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. So if the Iraqi people have not yet truly benefited from the War in Iraq and if the Americans still have their hands full, who then has reaped the benefits? The answer is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Prior to taking military action against Iraq, George W. Bush established a syndicate of rogue nations known as the 'Axis of Evil.' This coalition consisted of three nations (Iraq, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran) that possessed distinctive sociopolitical characteristics contrary to that of international norms. All three nations in the Axis were authoritarian but were also individually unique. The criteria that rendered these nations members revolved around each country's ability to manipulate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), facilitate international, but more pressingly, regional militant fundamentalism, and destabilize political processes in surrounding nations. Only one of these nations, Iran, is directly or indirectly responsible for all three. The difference, however, is that Iraq has suffered the consequences in the form of military repercussions, and North Korea in the form of international isolation. Iran, on the other hand, has succeeded in avoiding the spotlight, mostly because of the War in Iraq.

As the post-War mood and the initial successes of defeating the Iraqi regime began to intoxicate Washington, a sense of nervousness began to suffocate the political atmosphere in Tehran. The formal military campaign in Iraq, which focused on the removal of the Iraqi regime, had been completed as quickly and precisely as originally expected with minimal casualties. Rumors surrounding a pre-emptive military strike aimed at Iran's nuclear and military facilities began to circulate, much to the delight of America's neo-conservatives. Realizing this, Iran quickly decided to facilitate a negotiation progress involving the E3 (Britain, France and Germany) on matters pertaining to its controversial nuclear program. And although there were some in Washington who wanted to use this development to spearhead political rapprochement, a hard-line stance in dealing with Iran was retained, and calls for a military strike began to get louder. However, it would be only a matter of months before all speculation was to die down, thanks to the rise of the Iraqi insurgency.

It has been two years since the rise of the insurgency and the situation in Iraq has not changed. The US and the Iraqi Armed Forces, have, in the insurgency, found themselves an enemy that has successfully painted a mask of fear on the face of an entire nation. At the same time that America began to curse its luck, Iran began to breathe a huge sigh of relief. The security situation in Iraq allowed Iran time and room to maneuver, as it became apparent that a full-fledged attack on Iran was improbable thanks to America's pre-occupation in Iraq. It should be noted that realistically, a military strike on Iran was unlikely from the outset when one takes into consideration Iran's geo-political advantages and the fact that it does not suffer from ethnic fragmentation, as in Afghanistan, or religious dissension, as in Iraq. As a result, Iran began to flex some political muscle, which culminated recently in a decision to restart the uranium conversion aspect of its nuclear program. Furthermore, the political situation in Iran began to take a turn for the worse from a reformist perspective, as the hard-liners quietly swept power from under the feet of the reformists in the recent general election.

Not all the benefits were political, however; in fact, many were economic. China, who had negotiated a major oil deal with Iraq in 2001 now had to find itself a new partner, as the Provisional Authorities in Iraq deemed all previous contracts to be null and void. Enter Iran, and a $70 billion contract to import Iranian oil, facilitated after the unlikelihood of a military strike against the Islamic Republic became apparent. Not only has Iran benefited economically as a result of its newfound connection with China and other nations such as Russia and India, but it now has an additional ally with the ability to veto any decision proposed by the UN Security Council regarding economic sanctions. Unfortunately for Washington, this is just the beginning. The real problem posed by Iran lies in its ability to influence, if not dominate, political developments next door in Iraq.

The Iranification of Shia Iraq

The reign of the secular Saddam Hussein saw the political repression of an entire nation, but it specifically bore witness to a suppression of Iraq's Shia population. In fact, the situation for Shias in Iraq became so bad – membership in the mainstream Al-Da'wa party was punishable by death – that many in the Shia camp sought refuge in next door Iran. Iran, which is composed almost entirely of Shias, jumped at the opportunity and welcomed the Iraqi exiles with open arms, knowing that in doing so it would have an opportunity to influence Iraq's political majority if Saddam's regime were ever to fall. Iran's persistence paid off as today, several of the mainstream Shia political groups in Iraq, such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Da'wa party, and the Sadrist (followers of the Shia cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr), look to Iran's clerical leaders for guidance. They are committed to an Iraqi version of an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy.

The cooperation does not stop there. In the years that Saddam was in power, pilgrimages to Iraq's holy cities of Najaf and Karbala by Iranian Shias were prohibited. Today, however, the Shias are in power, and the foundations for unobstructed cooperation between the two states have already been laid. Iranian entrepreneurs, encouraged as a result of the influx of Iranian pilgrims flocking to Iraq, have agreed to spearhead projects to build tourist attractions and hotels in the holy cities, in addition to extending an offer to build an airport in Najaf.

All this comes as Iraqis prepare for a referendum on a new constitution. If the Shias and the Kurds have their way, federalism will be implemented and what will follow may revolve around the Islamification of the Shia-dominated portion of Iraq. It is already known that influential clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani support the idea of an Iranian-style Iraq, where segregation of the sexes is fundamental, and political transparency is constrained. The signs of such a transformation are already in place. Marriages between Shias and Sunnis are becoming increasingly difficult, women cover themselves in many parts of the country, and Taliban-style Islamic law is being implemented in remote portions of the North.

Although the idea of another Islamic republic would easily upset anyone in the West, the prospect of Iraq becoming the next Iran is not necessarily a bad one. Iran gets heavily criticized for its domestic policies, and in many cases the criticisms are justifiable, but the fact of the matter is that Iran is probably the most democratic country in the entire Middle East. Women are treated far better in Iran than they are in the austere Arab World, and Islamic fundamentalism is frowned upon in the mainstream political circles of Iran. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, America's so-called allies against terror.

Finally, it must be questioned whether or not Mr. Bush ever considered it possible that the Iraqi people might not want a liberal democracy in the Western sense but that rather, they might voluntarily opt for an independent Islamic semi-democracy revolving around Islamic law, similar to Iran. Nevertheless, it will only be a matter of time before George Bush finds out exactly what Mohammed Reza Shah, the former monarch of Iran, discovered some 25 years ago; in the Muslim Word, Islam controls everything.

Sources

Hardy, Roger. "As Islamic Republic of Iraq?" BBC News. 23 Aug. 2005. 2 Oct. 2005. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4177266.stm >.

Schwartz, Michael. "The Iranian Nightmare." Shahrvand. 11 Aug. 2004.

[ issue contents ] [ fmm home ] [ send feedback ] [ tell a friend ]