The escalating crisis between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Iran and its regional arms on the other, may be one of the most serious challenges facing the Iraqi political system since its formation after the occupation of Iraq in 2003, where heterogeneous political forces and different loyalties and references to make unified decisions towards dealing With the current conflict that is evolving and may descend into all-out war.
It is apparent in the general political scene that the official Iraqi leaders represented by the Presidency of the Republic, the Prime Minister, and then the Speaker of the Council of Representatives all focused in their reactions and official speeches on the need to keep Iraq away from any axes of the international and regional conflict, especially between the allies of the political process, America and Iran. However, this did not prevent the emergence of currents and positions in some parties of this process, some of which poured out of his anger towards Washington, Israel and even Saudi Arabia, while others found it an appropriate opportunity to curtail the Iranian role in their country and enable them to achieve the balances lost in the balance of political forces The armed forces that were and still tend to favor the parties, blocs and militias supported by Iran.
The nature of the structural problems of the political situation in Iraq
The political process in Iraq is based on a central basis agreed upon by the former opposition forces at the London Conference in 2002 (sponsored by the United States of America), with the tacit approval of Iran, which was represented at the conference by Iraqi political forces founded in Tehran and worked Before the US invasion, with the support of the occupying power, it was able to take control of the basic joints of the state and its power structures.
These arrangements, agreed at the time between Washington and Tehran, made Iraq subject to US and Iranian influence.These arrangements went smoothly at times and coarse at others as required by the interests of both parties, while Iraq itself and its political process were out of priority.
Despite all aspects of US-Iranian hostility, there is a general framework for understanding between the two powers on the issue of Iraq in particular.
Although the general framework of the Iraqi government system, from 2003 to the present, suggests a democratic system based on the election of the people to its representatives and then the sharing of powers according to this choice, in fact this did not provide political stability in Iraq, and may be among the most important The reasons for political instability are “the inability of the regime to deal successfully with the crises it faces, its inability to manage the conflicts within the society in a way that it can maintain in a circle that enables it to control and control, accompanied by the use of political violence on the one hand, and diminished its legitimacy. , And his efficiency on the other. "
Perhaps the Iraqi situation, during more than 16 years of bitter experience in governance, reflected many patterns of political instability, and instead highlighted the phenomena of internal conflict, which included indicators of worsening internal crises, the spread of corruption, weak state institutions, and the multiplicity of power centers and authorities Decision-making, the dominance of external forces, and the strengthening of the power and control of armed militias in the political and security landscape.
The direct influence of the United States and Iran in the Iraqi political movement has made it difficult to unify the Iraqi effort to break the bottleneck in which Iraq was placed after the American occupation; political parties of a religious sectarian nature had the most prominent features in managing confusion and in the methodology of formulating state policies. Under the support and support and then control one party or another in their political and organizational line within Iraq, and with the clarity of experience and repeated positions became simple Iraqi citizen clearly knows what each of these parties and the degree of affiliation with Iran or the United States as well as minority countries Yeh other Arab or non-Arab, which do not intersect much with the American orientation or Iranian.
External influences on political division
The Iraqi government appears to have limited ability to control security developments because of the multiplicity of power centers and the wide influence of both Iran and America
The influence of the United States and Iran in Iraq has put severe pressure on the political and security situation, especially in cases of disagreement and contradictory interests between the two parties.This was among many reasons that contributed to spreading the political and social divide, and the perpetuation of the phenomenon of corruption, and the consequent spread of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. The prevalence of drugs and many manifestations of underdevelopment.
After the defeat of the Islamic State, the end of coordination and turning a blind eye between the two sides of influence in the region (Iran and America) was evident in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, where the recent formation of the Iraqi government witnessed tensions between the agents of this or that state in the process. Iraqi politics, delayed its announcement for several months, and even after the announcement was speculation observers and the Iraqi street go to designate holders of the leadership positions of each state according to the state that may have bargained him to end the file to form a government.
With Washington implementing its sanctions against Tehran and exporting its oil quota to a minimum, meaning its revenues have fallen sharply, the Iranian leadership has found it appropriate to preoccupy the US side in Iraq, where Iran has the strike force (politically) in the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister; Thousands of militia fighters in the Popular Mobilization are loyal to the Supreme Leader in Iran, while US efforts have focused on Iraqi political forces, some tribal sheikhs in Anbar, Nineveh and Salah al-Din provinces, as well as Iraqi Kurdistan, as well as some of the growing sensitivities The influence of Iran in Iraq, was that the atmosphere of the mobilization of the proxy in Iraq emerged clearly manifested with the increasing economic pressure on Iran.
However, what is important here, despite all the manifestations of US-Iranian hostility, there is a general framework for understanding between the two forces on the issue of Iraq in particular, and there are necessarily lines of communication and communication between them to keep the general situation beyond the limits of direct engagement, while the Iraqi government seems limited capacity to Controlling security developments due to the multiplicity of power centers, the wide influence of Iran on the security and political scene, as well as the American political presence in influencing another part of the political process.
The impact of the phenomenon of armed militias on political decision
The phenomenon of militias and armed factions emerged immediately after the occupation of Iraq in 2003, and was in many ways, including:
- Armed factions formed under the slogan (Resistance to the occupation), and was stationed especially in the Sunni areas and the capital Baghdad, and included elements of the former Iraqi army after the decision of the occupation authority to dissolve, as well as independent elements of civil or religious or national references.
- Kurdish armed groups (Peshmerga) These have already existed for several decades, and have combat experience and a clear structural organization, before becoming the official military force of the Kurdistan region of Iraq.
- Armed organizations (jihadists), most notably: Al Qaeda and then the organization (Islamic State).
- Shiite armed militias that originated in Iran and carried out armed operations inside Iraq, and participated in the Iran-Iraq war alongside Iran, most notably the Badr Organization, and grew up after the occupation of what is known as the (Mahdi Army) of the cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr.
- Other militias that emerged later split from each other or newly formed.
- The Popular Mobilization, which was founded in 2014 on the basis of a religious fatwa issued by the Shiite cleric, Mr. Ali al-Sistani, to counter the progress of the Islamic State after taking control of Mosul, and later mobilized for itself a legal character and organized dozens of militias according to a special structure and leadership, until it became Military entity parallel to the army.
| Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (Al Jazeera) |
Most of these armed forces, with the exception of the Kurdish Peshmerga and Shiite militias, have either diminished or faded, whether within or outside the Popular Mobilization Forces.These Shiite militias have become a striking force not only at the level of security assessment but also political, and the government has allocated a large budget to the Popular Mobilization. From the general budget of Iraq, which made it stronger than the national army several equipment and equipment to enable it to extend its control over the course of things in the country whenever it wants. The website (DEEPKA) Israeli: The Popular Mobilization Forces, especially the militias more close to Iran "outperform the Iraqi National Army in terms of size and armament, and possesses new tanks, surface-to-surface missiles and a group of explosive drones."
The former CIA chief, David Petraeus, compares what he described as the threat of popular mobilization with the long-term threat of ISIS, arguing that the Hashd are the most dangerous for Iraq's future. “These militias are atrocities against Sunni civilians,” he said. It poses a threat to all efforts to make the Sunni component part of the solution in Iraq and not a factor of failure. ISIS is not the first threat to the security of Iraq and the region because it is on the verge of defeat, but the most serious threat comes from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
Bombing the headquarters of the Popular Mobilization and consolidating the political division
The repeated shelling of sites and camps of Shiite militias close to or affiliated with Iran has revealed an organic and operational relationship with the Iranian strategic vision in the region, and the nature of the confrontation with the local armed arms used by Iran in many places across the Middle East. One of the immediate consequences of this bombardment, although the origin of the strikes remains unknown, was to show the extent of the coordination of the militias with Iran, the acquisition of many advanced weapons, and the effects of the bombing, but more importantly lies in the implications that the survival of the militias in the circle of Iranian use in the Context of the current conflict with the United States.
These strikes have caused widespread controversy inside Iraq, although no one has declared support for them, and while the various political forces, activists and the media considered it an unacceptable assault on Iraqi sovereignty, but clear and strong opinions emerged after that demanding that Iraq avoid any repercussions of aligning with this party or That is in the ongoing confrontation between the United States and Iran.
This predominantly popular position was in harmony with the official positions; the three Iraqi presidencies (the Republic, the Council of Ministers, and the Council of Representatives) declared a common position to "distance the country from being a springboard to attack any neighboring countries and the region," but other positions emerged that demanded On the contrary, the PMU supported Israel and the United States, and the need to respond militarily by striking American positions inside Iraq. Some militia leaders, parties, and PMU constituencies called for accusations against the prime minister, accusing him of weakness and favoring the United States.
"There is no broad mood among the Iraqi public for any kind of foreign intervention, whether American or Iranian," says Inna Rudolph, a researcher at the International Center for the Study of Extremism at King's College in London. But she also believes it is important that "US officials closely follow the Iraqi public discourse and not underestimate this assertion of Iraq's sovereignty and that bombings could undermine the Mahdi government, especially if the PMU militia decides to respond to US or Israeli targets."
The assumed scenarios of the political situation in Iraq in the event of a regional conflict
The scene of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi seems to be holding the stick in the middle; the two influential forces in Iraq's political, security, and economic realities lie on the US and Iran, which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, under political circumstances. And the dangerous military of the region, which has entered many parties as a player forces within its vital and strategic range under the umbrella of Washington or Tehran.
| Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi's visit to Tehran (European News Agency) |
The difficulty of Iraqi neutrality in the US-Iranian conflict lies in Baghdad's attempt to satisfy both sides of the conflict, a behavior in which interim gains may seem limited but very damaging and destructive, where official Iraqi sovereignty (the state) will fade to replace the loyalties of one or the other groups in the conflict and soon. What turns out to be full revenge in case one party prevails in the end.
The Iraqi political reality is incoherent because of the foundations on which it was established, namely, quotas and sectarianism, ignoring national cohesion and relying on foreign powers to continue. Iraqis today find themselves without effective leadership capable of charting a path that preserves Iraq's sovereignty and enhances the chances of circumventing a single national identity. Instead, the political class in general declares itself clearly divided into Iran or the United States, even though they are all sitting under the dome of a single parliament. What is more divisive is that the majority of the political parties in Iraq are acting in the interests of these two central powers without being there. Calculations related to getting Iraq out of its current political, security and economic situation.
Anyone following the Iraqi scene in the midst of accelerating events between all parties to the conflict, notes that the United States and Iran avoid direct clashes between them, but the parties urge the Baghdad government, encouraging or threatening, not to approve or support the other party, and the volume of pressure continues to escalate daily, with The breadth of the conflict and its parties, including those inside Iraq, Iraq within the composition of its current leadership may end up resigning the current government and bring a government that may make the idea of (neutrality) support and participation of one of the parties to the conflict.
Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr warned Tehran on September 16, 2019, of "the end of Iraq in case of war between Iran and America"
Stephen Wertheim, a specialist in the history of US foreign policy, refers to President Donald Trump's statement in his latest State of the Union address on February 6, 2019: "The superpowers are not fighting endless wars." Therefore, the war that some may bet on and think will be a way to get rid of Iranian or even American influence is not the end. Any war in a region full of mines such as Iraq-Iran and the Persian Gulf will not be long, but what can be long is The economic blockade and alternative wars between Tehran and Washington on the land of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and the waters of the Persian Gulf and others, and then there will be more real losers, perhaps from both sides of the conflict.
Politically, and in Iraq in particular, the seriousness of the general situation in this country is in the fragmentation of supporters and rejection of the Iranian presence and the availability of weapons of all kinds in the hands of all parties Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Christians and Yazidis, and because it is really dangerous in light of the expected breakdown of the Iraqi political and security situation, warned Shiite leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, from Tehran, September 16, 2019, from the end of Iraq in the event of the war between Iran and America, I refuse to involve my country in this war and make it a battleground, we need to take a serious stand with senior people to keep Iraq away from That fierce war that will eat green Dry. "
Al-Sadr supports this fear and warning against participation in any US-Iranian conflict in Iraq, former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Bahaa al-Araji, saying: "In the event of a conflict between the United States and Iran, it is possible that factions in the Popular Mobilization of the Iraqi state, And to disobey the orders of the authority responsible for defending Iranian interests; I do not accuse all factions of the crowd loyalty to Iran, but there are groups linked to officials in Tehran.
| Iraqi Popular Mobilization, a parallel combat force of the army, some of its units declare their readiness to fight alongside Iran (Getty Images) |
The balance of Iraqi forces is very difficult and in its entirety tends to favor pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, but many Iraqis hope that the United States will act with wisdom and precision in dealing with the files of their country, especially the economic and military file to enable the Iraqi state and its official army to exercise its role of A more powerful position with its regional environment, especially Iran, and some leaders of the blocs, parties and tribes of the Sunni Arabs and Kurds put all their hopes in support of US steps in Iraq and in the outbreak of any US-Iranian conflict and Washington abandoned its support for them or abandoned the Arab For Iran, this will mean the end of everything in this country with the absolute subordination of one spectrum.
"Iraq finds itself facing a major challenge in the current confrontation between Iran and the United States," writes Choi Corniche, a columnist for the Iraqi Times. Conflict, we do not have the ability or energy or resources or willingness to be again the victim of a new proxy war, we say: Iraq first, we do not want to waste our stability, and we suffered enough conflicts. The real fear is the role of the Iran-backed militias, which number about 150 thousand people through military action pushing Iraq to be a party in the confrontation between Iran and the United States in spite of him.
The situation of the Iraqi government is very difficult, and perhaps under the current circumstances, it does not have the actual ability to take a specific position to set the record straight. The United States is an important strategic ally of Iraq, as well as Iran, with which it is associated with vital economic interests in addition to its political and security influence. That is, the presence of what constitutes the military force striking Iran over the territory of Iraq, which constitutes a second army that can never be ignored in the calculations of the balance of power.
--------------------------------------------------
This article is from Al Jazeera Center for Studies.